The death penalty has been part of justice for many centuries. In the Middle Ages hanging was a form of punishment if people betrayed the government. Governments prosecuted those who practiced witchcraft and killed them. Should the government have the power to kill? Many people argue that this sort of punishment will decrease crime, especially if murderers commit several homicides or other brutal offenses. What if they execute an innocent person? Capital punishment has been associated with discrimination of ethic backgrounds and ought to be abolished.
             First, while some people think trials are fair, there exists a bias in race and social status. Race discrimination has been part of the world history. In Virginia during the 19th century, 75 men convicted died by the death penalty. Of those 75 men, 70 were black. About the same time in Idaho, 58 men faced the death penalty. Thirty-nine were Indians, 15 were blacks and only 4 were whites (Mitchell 52). Even today a prosecutor tends to seek the death penalty more for the minorities than for whites. A study in Philadelphia during 1983 and 1993 revealed that minorities are 3.9 times more likely to receive the death penalty. In most cases, the defendants do not have enough money to pay for an attorney. Defendants go to trial with incompetent lawyers.
             The bottom line is that lawyers get paid per trial, no matter if they win or lose. The longer the trial, the less trials a lawyer can handle per year, which sometimes means less pay.
             Two years ago an innocent man was on death row. In less than a week he was scheduled for lethal injection for a crime he never committed. Two days before the execution a woman testified that her husband was the killer and saved the accused. He was one of the lucky ones (Bedau 120). Why should innocent people die just because their lawyer cannot find enough evidence to prove innocence?
             Second, while some think death row
             ...