eason that they were considered inhumane. The Court states that the death penalty should allow some form of retribution and deterrence. The Court also states that when the death penalty ceases to get these two points across, it is a useless waste of a life. Most inmates who are sentenced to die appeal their sentences continually, which is understandable. The system, in an effort to promote the fair implementation of the death penalty allows this to occur to a certain degree. Unfortunately, the longer the stay of execution, the less retribution and deterrence play a role in the inmate being put to death. Putting more restrictions on the appeals process would certainly lean more towards retribution and deterrence, but would take away from the fairness of the process.Another point brought about by the court is that if a less severe punishment will have the same effect as the inmate being put to death, the death penalty is a moot point. Given the choice between life in prison without the chance of parole and being put to death most would choose life in prison, however, the deterrence factor between the two is much less than most will admit. Certainly a person being tortured on public display serves a much better role of deterrence than the death penalty as it now stands. The Court would undoubtedly find that to be cruel and unusual, however, and the deterrence of it would not even come into play, because it would be so horrible to the general public....
