ompson Vs. Oklahoma (487 U.S. 815), on June 29th, 1998 the death penalty was once again brought up for violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. In this case the defendant William Thompson, who was 15 at the time, brutally murdered his bother-in-law (http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+/pageitems=[body]). Due to how cruel the crime was the prosecutor asked that he be tried as an adult. It was granted due to the boys violent nature, past offensives, and psychiatric. The boy was sentenced to with first-degree murder and was to be sentenced to death(http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+/pageitems=[body]). The ruling was appealed by the Supreme Court due to he was going to be sentenced to death. This is where the courts ruled that anyone under the age of 16 at the time of their crime is prohibited to be executed by the death penalty. The courts decided this due to it was said to violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment clause (http://mtsd.k12.wi.us/mtsd/district/whacked.sites/anatomy.of.a.murder/gregg.htm). How could killing, as a form of punishment be morally accepted in our nation when it can be issued to some, while letting others avoid it? If we are terminating someones life for killing, how are we any more morally right for killing him or her? It is acceptable to our criminal justice system for it seems to be an everyday overlooked standard operating procedure. Many believe the death penalty is based on the Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth concept. The death penalty is incorrect due to the price and time of executing someone, and that it isnt a deterrent against violent crime, of how cruel and unusual it is, and the chance of incarcerating an innocent person. One misunderstood concept concerning the death penalty is that it is less expensive to execute someone instead of life imprisonment. What many people dont unde...
