Death Penalty- History in the United States×541.jpg

Though the death penalty has always been present in American history, the prevalence, methods, and support for the death penalty has changed over time. In 1791, the Framers of the United States Constitution created the Bill of Rights, intended to protect the civil liberties of citizens in the new nation[i]. Specifically, the 8th Amendment declares that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted”[ii]. Yet despite this amendment, the death penalty continued to be used in the United States justice system as it had been under British colonial rule. At the time, the Founders were focused on the ethical principle of utilitarianism, making their decision based on what choice provides the most good to the most people. The death penalty was intended to deter citizens from committing crimes, punishing those who commit capital crimes to discourage other citizens from doing the same thing, in order to maintain structure within the country and protect public safety. At the end of the 19th century, two Supreme Court cases Wilkerson v. Utah (1879) and in re Kemmler (1890) upheld the constitutionality of death by firing squad and death by electrocution respectively[iii]. While the Founders of the Constitution focused on utilitarianism, by 1917 nine states abolish the death penalty for all crimes, demonstrating a commitment to the ethical principle of deontology. Individual states focused on respect for humans as ends rather than means, which made it difficult for them to justify the deterrent effect of the death penalty.


Hanging is one of the oldest components of the United States criminal justice system, as the earliest form of the death penalty used universally in the 19th century. Hangings were accompanied by a range of issues, including intense pain and failure to kill; however, these consequences were accepted as unfortunate, yet inevitable accompaniments to execution. As the decade progressed, the pain associated with hangings became increasingly disturbing to the audience and the methods’ issues became more and more prevalent. The invention of anesthesia in the 19th century allowed the minimization of pain; however, it never became widely used[iv]. After hundreds of years of hangings, Americans began to search for a more humane method.


As electricity was introduced into homes and workplaces in the late 1800s, the number of electricity caused deaths were on the rise. At the time, electricity was a new technology that’s dangers were unknown. As the hazards of electricity became clear, it was adapted for use in the criminal justice system. New York’s death penalty commission even consulted with Thomas Edison, who opposed the death penalty, but advised that electricity would be the fastest and least painful method for execution[v]. Ohio State Penitentiary guards used electricity as a form of punishment, creating a complete circuit with a tub of water, the inmate, and a battery[vi]. This led to the creation of the electric chair, officially introduced in 1889. New York became the first state to adopt this method and abandon hanging, and by 1950, 26 states had followed[vii]. This method proved to be very effective in pain delivery, and the medical opinion was that it was fast, painless, and humane. It was later discovered that the cause of death from electrocution is ventricular fibrillation, where the heart is prevented from pumping blood through uncontrolled contractions of the heart muscle[viii]. This method portrayed the high levels of scientific advancement at the time, and it was deemed superior to hanging. However, electrocution also had its faults, including causing deep burns on the inmates, and the mouth strap causing partial asphyxiation[ix]. This prompted the popularity of other methods.


There has been a lot of skepticism about the death penalty in the general public and through political figures. One of the first news stories about the death penalty happened in July of 1895 where they were writing about a doctor who received the death penalty. In this article, the author describes the execution very explicitly, writing that during the electrocution, “two contacts were made but all physicians and electricians claim that the second contact was merely precautionary”[x]. This explicit use of language surrounding the death does not persist in the media or culture as the death penalty becomes older and more debated publicly. Because of the smaller role of media during this time period, it is much more difficult to gauge the culture surrounding the death penalty during this time.


As American society progressed, there were multiple court cases that challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty, causing the Supreme Court to question the ethics of the 8th Amendment. Additionally, the 14th Amendment came into the equation. The 14th Amendment states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” [xi]. Furman v. Georgia (1972) involved a man who accidentally shot and killed the resident of a home after running away during an armed burglary. The Justices of the Court established no majority opinion, but decided 5-4 that the death penalty was cruel and unusual in this case, leading all death sentences pending at the time to be reduced to life imprisonments [xii]. However, the Supreme Court case of Gregg v. Georgia (1976) called the ethics of the death penalty into question again, arguing it violated both the 8th and 14th amendments. The case involved a person who was found guilty of armed robbery and murder by a jury and sentenced to death. The Court upheld this decision because Georgia created a new law that established the “bifurcated trial” which consisted of a guilt and penalty phase where lawyers presented both mitigating and aggravating factors for any potential death penalty [xiii]. The Court concluded that Georgia’s use of separate guilt and penalty trials demonstrate the state’s careful and judicious use of the death penalty, focusing on the nature of crime and the characteristics of the individual. As the nation’s justice system progressed, the Supreme Court upheld the ethics of the death penalty, focusing on beneficence, doing what is right, as well as justice, carrying out what people deserve.


As the Supreme Court transformed their view on the validity of the death penalty, there were also new methods of carrying out capital punishment. The gas chamber was first introduced in Nevada in 1921. The process takes place in an airtight gas chamber where the inmate is strapped to a chair over a container of sulfuric acid. The executioner then releases crystals of sodium cyanide into the container, which causes a chemical reaction that releases hydrogen cyanide gas, which the inmate inhales[xiv]. A doctor stands outside the chamber, in order to pronounce the inmate dead by using a long stethoscope. The cause of death of this method is hypoxia, the loss of oxygen to the brain [xv]. This method is still legal in five states as an alternative method to lethal injection[xvi].

In the US today, lethal injection is the most common method of execution. The turn to this method reflects the United States growing reliance on medicine to eliminate the death penalty. Even though this is the most modern form of execution, it is still viewed as inhumane and unconstitutional. Most lethal injection process involves three drugs: sodium thiopental, Pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride. These drugs are used respectively as an anesthetic to cause unconsciousness, a muscle relaxant that paralyzes the diaphragm and lungs, and a toxin that induces cardiac arrest [xvii]. However, it is possible for the initial anesthetic that causes the inmate to lose consciousness to fail, and for the muscle relaxant to mask the indications of consciousness in the inmate, leaving them in excruciating pain. If one’s veins could not be located, executioners would implement an intramuscular injection that is much slower and more painful than the usual delivery. Another issue present in the medical field is that lack of medical justification for lethal injection, yet a physician’s assistance is critical for safe administration. If the offender doesn’t want to deal with these risks, secondary options are available in seven of the death penalty states, including electrocution, lethal gas, hanging, nitrogen hypoxia, and firing squad[xviii]. Even though the science has improved to be able to facilitate and make the death penalty process more humane, its success is still questioned, leaving the search for a medically humane execution method ongoing.


As society progressed, Americans in the twentieth century focused on wanting “the death penalty applied more often and more quickly” [xix]. This public request to ensure that the death penalty was being used in an efficient way instead of something that was time consuming and not necessarily a guaranteed death. It seemed that during this time period “the death penalty seemed to be finally achieving what it was designed to do”, after years of issues and debate about the ethics[xx]. This change was due to a change in the methods of administration and an upgrade in technology in the methods of death.

People were also very concerned with the methods of death. The culture surrounding the death penalty and public opinion tended to be scared of new methods and scary technology. For example, a news article from 1982 talks about a fear of the “hi-tech death penalty of the future”, comparing the methods of lethal injection to methods in the “Nazi death camp experiments” [xxi]. These concerns stem from World War II and people’s desire for the United States to not “murder” it’s criminals and there were many protests surrounding these issues [5]. This issue of the public opinion about the method of injection lasted into the 1990’s. One example is an article written about a “switch to using lethal injection when imposing the death penalty” instead of more violent methods[xxii]. This article discusses the first execution in California following a break between 1967 and 1992. Essentially, the media was bringing back death penalty to the public eye and calling attention to the technology used, because “1920s technology didn’t always work as advertised” [xxiii]. As the technology improved, people became more approving of the death penalty being used because it seemed more ethically sound and humane, as people wanted in the United States culture.


As American society became more skeptical of the death penalty, the Supreme Court in recent cases has issued more liberal rulings protecting different groups of people from the use of capital punishment. In the 2000s, the Court issued several rulings that promoted an “evolving standard of decency”[xxiv]. Atkins v. Virginia (2002) dealt with a mentally retarded man who abducted and murdered a US airman, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) involved a seventeen-year-old who broke into a woman’s house and murdered her. In both of these cases, the Court concluded that executing mentally retarded people or juveniles is a violation of the 8th amendment[xxv]. The Court’s decision relied on the fact that executing juveniles and mentally retarded people will not advance the deterrent purpose of the 8th Amendment. Further, while capital punishment was previously used for any crimes the state deemed deserving of the death penalty, the Court concluded in Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) that the 8th Amendment protects against disproportionate punishments, reserving capital punishment for murder[xxvi]. The Supreme Court’s rulings in America’s recent history show that ethically the Court is grappling with the idea of justice, giving a person what is due, owed, or deserved: finding that juveniles, mentally retarded people, and those who don’t commit capital crimes are not deserving of the death penalty.


The election of George Bush in 2000 was an affirmation that the people in the United States supported the death penalty because as the governor “had presided over 152 executions, the most of any modern governor at the time” [xxvii]. This shows that the culture had shifted and now a large majority of the United States supported the death penalty, as proven through the election of George Bush. In the years following this election, while people still supported the death penalty as a punishment for death, but when compared to a sentence of life without parole it was a pretty even split of 48% to 47%, with more people favoring life without parole [xxviii]. While the death penalty is still widely accepted as a form of punishment, just as many people believe that life without parole is a fair punishment. However, “the public retains some hesitation about [life without parole] because of the high costs of keeping someone in prison for life”, despite the fact that executions can be even more costly than life in prison [xxix]. The public may sometimes be slightly misinformed about the cost and methods of the death penalty; however, public support continues to be positive in regards to the culture surrounding the death penalty.


The Death Penalty was instituted in American society as a way to deter the public from committing crimes. Throughout this nation’s history, the methods and frequency of use of the death penalty has changed due to developments in technology, several rulings by the Supreme Court, and shifts in public opinion.



[i] Epstein , Lee, and Thomas Walker. 2016. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

[ii] Annaliese, F. F. (1999). Louisiana’s newest capital crime: The death penalty for child rape. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 89(2), 717-750. doi:

[iii] Garland, D. (2011). The problem of the body in modern state punishment. Social Research, 78(3), 767-798. Retrieved from

[iv] Banner, Stuart. The Death Penalty: An American History. Harvard University Press, 2003.

[v] Banner, Stuart. The Death Penalty: An American History. Harvard University Press, 2003.

[vi] Banner, Stuart. The Death Penalty: An American History. Harvard University Press, 2003.

[vii] “States and Capital Punishment.” National Conference of State Legislatures. June 6, 2018.

[viii] Banner, Stuart. The Death Penalty: An American History. Harvard University Press, 2003.

[ix] Banner, Stuart. The Death Penalty: An American History. Harvard University Press, 2003.

[x] “Dr. Buchanan Executed The Celebrated Poisoner Pays the Penalty for His Crime. Death Results Instantly.” Idaho Statesman (Boise, Idaho) 31, July 2, 1895: [1]. NewsBank.

[xi] James, Joseph Bliss. The Framing of the Fourteenth Amendment. Urbana: University of illinois Press, 1956.

[xii] Dukes, J. A., Sr. (2008). The effect of furman v. georgia on state death penalty legislation (Order No. 3339058). Available from Political Science Database. (275681992). Retrieved from

[xiii] Berry,William W., I.,II. (2011). REPUDIATING DEATH. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 101(2), 441-492. Retrieved from

[xiv] Denno, Deborah W. “Gas Chamber.” Encyclopædia Britannica. January 16, 2019.

[xv] “Firing Squad and Gas Chamber Closer to Reality in Three States.” February 12, 2015.

[xvi] “States and Capital Punishment.” National Conference of State Legislatures. June 6, 2018.

[xvii] Lanier, Charles S., William J. Bowers, and James R. Acker. The Future of America’s Death Penalty: An Agenda for the next Generation of Capital Punishment Research. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2009.

[xviii] “States and Capital Punishment.” National Conference of State Legislatures. June 6, 2018.

[xix] Dieter, Richard. “Changing Views on the Death Penalty in the United States.” Death Penalty Information Center. October 7, 2007.

[xx] Dieter, Richard. “Changing Views on the Death Penalty in the United States.” Death Penalty Information Center. October 7, 2007.

[xxi] Taylor, Gary. “Protesters fear injection the ‘hi-tech’ death penalty of future.” UPI NewsTrack, December 8, 1982. NewsBank.



[xxiv] Paul, S. (2015). TOWARD A UNIFORM STANDARD OF DECENCY: CONNECTICUT’S PROSPECTIVE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT REPEAL AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT.Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, 10(1), 280-318. Retrieved from

[xxv] Epstein , Lee, and Thomas Walker. 2016. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

[xxvi] Sheley, E. (2008, Mar). The supreme penalty. The Weekly Standard, 13, 17-19. Retrieved from

[xxvii] Dieter, Richard. “Changing Views on the Death Penalty in the United States.” Death Penalty Information Center. October 7, 2007.

[xxviii] Dieter, Richard. “Changing Views on the Death Penalty in the United States.” Death Penalty Information Center. October 7, 2007.

[xxix] Dieter, Richard. “Changing Views on the Death Penalty in the United States.” Death Penalty Information Center. October 7, 2007.


By: Blythe Turner, Megan Essig, Elizabeth Kupec


  1. I have often viewed the death penalty in a different light due to watching films such as The Green Mile when I was younger. This post intrigued me and had me question a lot of the prior stigmas that I attached with the death penalty. I cannot believe that the gas chamber was active in Nevada in 1921 – that seems too recent based on today’s beliefs on the moral implications involved in end of life procedures. Were you guys shocked as well?

  2. o This post was very informative. The two cases regarding the death penalty in Georgia always had me very confused because the crimes were similar but the verdicts were very different. Often it is not told if there were any key differences between the cases. Because the cases have always been generalized so I wasn’t sure. I also question how the US could experiment so heavily in the death penalty to find the most easy, quick and ethical way. But the death penalty itself is completely unethical so it is going to be hard to do it in the most ethical way. High-tech technology for the future of death penalties just seems very disturbing to me. Loved the post overall, I learned a lot.

  3. Blake Matthews

    April 21, 2019 at 8:26 pm

    I thought this post was very informative. However, without direct proof, I think some of your statements, such as yours regarding the founders and their intentions, are seen as very subjective rather than factual. I think it would have been better to clearly state factual evidence to back up your claims or formed an argument to help me follow your claims. Furthermore, I think that lethal injection shows a more humane proxy to the death penalty and rather demonstrates a reliance on medicine to ease the death penalty. I believe you did an excellent job in comparing the different death methodologies focused in the US, however it would have been interesting to see this analysis compared to other countries.

  4. The history behind the death penalty is in interesting one, and I’m glad that in your post you talked about the changing opinions of the American public and how we’ve have become more aware that death absolute and the idea of the death penalty may not be something we should be allowed to carry out. Who are we to condemn someone to die? The historical facts your group brought made me realize that people have come far in their thinking, and in recent times the idea of the death penalty is something that a lot of people now take issue with.

  5. I find it concerning that the death penalty is in many ways, dictated by a social public. You talk about how changing opinion leads to changing policy and in many ways that raises the question of is someone’s life less valuable based on their actions? The alternatives of life in prison or solitary confinement are both “alternatives” to the death penalty and they are widely implemented yet the death penalty still stands as a punishment, costing taxpayers much more yet that public is the same public who had inadvertently devalued this person’s life in the first place by their upholding of the death penalty. It’s difficult to speak about the death penalty ethically because there is so much disparity in the cultural perceptions of whether it should or should not be done.

  6. While this post is very informative about the scientific and ethical aspects about the types of execution, there is not much of a focus on the cultural aspects of each death penalty. I learned a lot from this post about what each method does to a person, how they came about in the United States, and the effect the death penalty has had over time. I also did not realize the importance the 8th and 14th amendments had related to this issue, or that George Bush had resided over executions during his time in the government. But there was not much focus on cultural aspects related to this issue; do you think it would have helped make this post even more interesting and informative, or do you think it serves its purpose without it? In the article related to the death penalty where the methods are compared, multiple different countries are discussed in relation to how they view the death penalty. Do you think these perspectives would have been relevant in this particular post?

  7. This post was very interesting, and posed a lot of questions I myself could not answer. I did not know the conflict with the 8th and 14th amendment. I am curious how other countries approach the legality of the death penalty, if they even do. I like how you gave us examples of the ways execution has been done throughout history, ending with lethal injection as the most humane. You mentioned our growing reliance on medicine, which reminded me of assisted suicide, and made me wonder if the same drug was used in both instances. We didn’t really learn about the excruciating pain one could endure from assisted suicide. As I was reading through the comments, one noted that the death penalty is completely unethical- but I pose the question: what if the person on death row is a threat to society? For example, Ted Bundy killed over 30 women, and escaped from prison twice. As a complete threat to the community, is it ethical to let him live? Im not saying I know the answer, just something to think about.

  8. Madison Bencini

    April 24, 2019 at 6:31 pm

    I think your post brought to light the variance that human nature has given to those who deserve capital punishment and those who do not. You all brought to light the long and troubled history of the death penalty in the United States. Your mention of the case of mentally retarded individuals who were not given a death penalty was interesting. We seem to associate intent of a crime with the execution of the death penalty. However, when will we come to a point where we realize that no human, regardless of intent, deserves such a severe punishment?

  9. From the perspective of someone who also researched the topic of the death penalty, I was unaware of how many of these methods began. While I had researched the various methods in contemporary society, I had never thought about their historical development and how, even though times and technology has changed so drastically in the last century, the death penalty methods have largely stayed the same and are grossly undeveloped and experimental. For example, I knew that the electric chair was still used, but never realized it originally was a form of punishment used by penitentiary guards. That’s absolutely horrifying. Furthermore, the court rulings were also a point of interest for me: their controversy reflects how much America operates in the gray areas. They put things like the 8th Amendment into place only to decide whether or not something is a “disproportionate punishment” on a case by case basis, with no real standards or consistency.

  10. Thanks for the post! I know that the death penalty can be a hot topic in politics in our day and age and so it is helpful to know the root of this issue and the background behind it. Although I know now that it is assumed that we as a society want the deaths to be as clean and quick as possible, I hadn’t thought of them being intentionally painful in the past. This shows how our society might be developing toward a more humane way of looking at humans as more valuable, even the most destructive and harmful people. The research looks great and flowed really well in an easy-to-read way. I hope that we continue to discuss the death penalty in detail and provide information to people on how harmful and painful that it can really be, provided that they agree that the person should not suffer greatly during the death (or die at all). Great post.

  11. The death penalty is a very controversial topic and I think you all did a great job in not showing bias to one side or another but rather truly using this space to educate your readers on the history of the death penalty in the United States. I was extremely shocked to find out that five states still have gas chambers as an alternative option to lethal injection and I am curious about what North Carolina’s specific policies are. I would have liked to see a more cultural approach in this post to show how society has reacted over time or how the United States compares to other countries in terms of corporal punishment and the death penalty. I am still stunned that the Supreme Court has not deemed the death penalty to be ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. How is killing someone in response to them killing someone not cruel and unusual punishment? Overall this was a great post!

  12. Tierra Faulkner

    April 25, 2019 at 12:39 am

    With all the history surrounding the death penalty and its misapplication throughout US history, I have often still found my self to be in support of the punishment. While when committed in the wrong or unworthy situations the death penalty is inexcusable, I personally believe there are some actions so heinous they deserve to be sanctioned with death. With this being the case, I believe the United States has a long way to go before the “justice” system is truly representative of the ideals it claims to effectively administer the death penalty in an unbiased manner. From an ethical standpoint, I find the experimentation within the death penalty to be extremely problematic and rather troubling. As humans we all understand how death works and how to cause it in a rather quick manner. The search for quick and effective ways to end life by the government is ethically questionable at best. This paper does a great job of exploring the nuance between the idea of the death penalty and its actual application and implication for societies.

  13. I was very intrigued to learn about the background behind the death penalty in the US, as this topic can be quite a controversial subject. I personally do not support the death penalty, as I believe it is stooping down to the level of the criminal by inflicting death upon them. However, it was interesting to read that the death penalty is used to deter others from committing heinous crimes, as they will come to realize that the outcome is undesirable. I was happy to see that the means in which the death penalty is conducted has been modified greatly over time, becoming less brutal and torturous. This is all thanks to scientific advancements, which have served to make the death penalty more humane. This leads me to wonder, what will be the next execution method of the death penalty? What sorts of advancements will spur a change from the most common method, lethal injection, to an alternative approach?

  14. Alejandra Fernandez-Borunda

    April 25, 2019 at 5:33 am

    This post was very interesting and thought provoking. It really made me think and analyze a lot of the ethics of the death penalty, but it also made me think about the progression of the death penalty. One line in the post that really made me think was, “As the technology improved, people became more approving of the death penalty being used because it seemed more ethically sound and humane, as people wanted in the United States culture”. This made me wonder what exactly about technology made the death penalty more ‘humane’. It sounded to me like as our society progressed from public hangings, what became ethical was making death more hidden and making it a technical problem. In doing this, and using technorationality, which is making moral and legal questions into chemical mechanics, it almost seemed to be reducing the complexity of morality. By moving towards lethal injection and talking about death in technical terms, such as focusing on what each injection does to the body on a chemical and biological level versus focusing on the person, made the death penalty a domain of experts. Do you believe that making the death penalty more hidden and reducing it to technorationality has made the death penalty more humane or has it simply made it easier to ignore the ethical dilemma?

Leave a Reply

© 2020 Death & Dying III

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑