In 1997, 80% of Americans supported the death penalty. A recent national poll found that number has dropped significantly to an all-time low of 63%. Furthermore, support for the death penalty dropped to 50% when respondents were asked to assume that the alternative to the death penalty was life in prison without the possibility of parole. Furthermore, the number of death sentences imposed in the United States in recent years has fallen to its lowest level since capital punishment was reinstated. It would therefore appear that our society's attitude towards capital punishment is also changing. What was once ordinary is now abnormal, and what was once essentially unquestioned is now questioned. The debate on the legitimacy or morality of the death penalty may be almost as old as the death penalty itself and, given the growing trend towards its complete abolition, perhaps because it is outdated. Capital punishment is terribly flawed, ineffective at deterring crime, completely immoral, outrageously expensive, and has no place in a civilized society. DeterrenceOne of the main arguments in favor of the death penalty is that it deters future criminals. Many individuals are led to believe that if the potential consequence of killing someone is death, other individuals will be less inclined to kill each other. However, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long periods of imprisonment. States that pass death penalty laws do not have lower crime or homicide rates than states without such laws. And states that have completely abolished capital punishment show no major differences in either crime or homicide rates. The death penalty has absolutely no deterrent effect if... middle of paper... we were African American. The ethical question here is: “Is the death penalty given to those based on race?” ConstitutionalityDeath is an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, its finality and its enormity. The fatal constitutional weakness of the death penalty is that it treats members of the human race as nonhuman, as objects to be played with and discarded. It is therefore incompatible with the fundamental premise of the clause that even the vilest criminal remains a human being endowed with common human dignity. It is, as such, a punishment that «subjects the individual to a fate prohibited by the principle of civil treatment guaranteed by the [clause]. Therefore, death is today a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the clause. The ethical question here is, “Does the death penalty violate our own amendments?” Conclusion