Overview
Hi, I need help with a graduate-level criminology paper about the death penalty in the United States. My position is retain the death penalty but reform it, not abolish it.
The paper should argue that the death penalty may remain for the most extreme aggravated murders, but the current system has serious problems and needs reforms such as higher evidence standards, stronger defense counsel, fairer jury procedures, and safeguards against racial and political bias.
Assignment details: The paper must be 8–10 pages, about 2000–2500 words, double-spaced, in APA format. It must cite at least 15 assigned class readings/articles.
Required structure:
- Introduction with a roadmap and thesis
- Detailed discussion of problems with the current death penalty system
- Argument for retaining but reforming the death penalty
- Policy implications of this recommendation
- Conclusion
Please use these assigned sources/readings:
- Unnever & Cullen, “Executing the Innocent and Support for Capital Punishment”
- Kennedy, “McCleskey v. Kemp: Race, Capital Punishment, and the Supreme Court”
- Baumgartner et al., “#BlackLivesDon’tMatter: Race-of-Victim Effects in US Executions, 1976–2013”
- Grosso et al. (2024), “The Influence of the Race of Defendant and the Race of Victim on Capital Charging and Sentencing in California”
- Pierce, Radelet, & Sharp, “Race and Death Sentencing for Oklahoma Homicides Committed Between 1990 and 2012”
- Williams, Demuth, & Holcomb, “Understanding the Influence of Victim Gender in Death Penalty Cases”
- Ulmer, Hanrath, & Zajac, “Racialized Victim Gender Differences in Capital Decision Making in Pennsylvania”
- Phillips et al., “Disentangling Victim Gender and Capital Punishment: The Role of Media”
- Phillips, “Status Disparities in the Capital of Capital Punishment”
- Bright & Keenan, “Judges and the Politics of Death”
- Hans et al., “The Death Penalty: Should the Judge or the Jury Decide Who Dies?”
- Bowers, “The Capital Jury Project”
- Marquart, Ekland-Olson, & Sorensen, “Gazing into the Crystal Ball: Can Jurors Accurately Predict Dangerousness in Capital Cases?”
- Lynch & Haney, “Death Qualification in Black and White”
- Vidmar & Ellsworth, “Public Opinion and the Death Penalty”
- Ramirez, “Unmasking the American Death Penalty Debate: Race, Context, and Citizens’ Willingness to Execute”
- Fagan & West, “The Decline of the Juvenile Death Penalty.
- Main argument:
The paper should not defend the current death penalty system as perfect. Instead, it should acknowledge the problems and argue that abolition is not the only solution. The death penalty should be retained only with strict reforms.
Problems to discuss:
- wrongful convictions and risk of executing innocent people
- racial disparities, especially race-of-victim effects
- victim gender and victim status disparities
- political pressure on judges and prosecutors
- ineffective assistance of counsel
- jury misunderstanding and death-qualified jury bias
- unreliable predictions of future dangerousness
- media pressure in high-profile cases
- inconsistent application across states and counties
Policy reforms to recommend:
- require stronger evidence before death can be sought
- require DNA or strong forensic/corroborating evidence when possible
- do not allow death sentences based mainly on weak eyewitness testimony, jailhouse informants, or uncorroborated confessions
- require highly qualified capital defense attorneys
- require unanimous jury decisions
- improve jury instructions
- limit death eligibility to the worst aggravated murders
- create independent review panels
- increase transparency in prosecutorial charging decisions
- protect judges from political pressure in capital cases
Please write it in a clear graduate-level style, but not overly complicated or “AI-like.” It should sound natural, direct, and academic.