essay about wrongful death

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?

In its last six months, the United States government has put 13 prisoners to death. Do you think capital punishment should end?

By Nicole Daniels

Students in U.S. high schools can get free digital access to The New York Times until Sept. 1, 2021.

In July, the United States carried out its first federal execution in 17 years. Since then, the Trump administration has executed 13 inmates, more than three times as many as the federal government had in the previous six decades.

The death penalty has been abolished in 22 states and 106 countries, yet it is still legal at the federal level in the United States. Does your state or country allow the death penalty?

Do you believe governments should be allowed to execute people who have been convicted of crimes? Is it ever justified, such as for the most heinous crimes? Or are you universally opposed to capital punishment?

In “ ‘Expedited Spree of Executions’ Faced Little Supreme Court Scrutiny ,” Adam Liptak writes about the recent federal executions:

In 2015, a few months before he died, Justice Antonin Scalia said he w o uld not be surprised if the Supreme Court did away with the death penalty. These days, after President Trump’s appointment of three justices, liberal members of the court have lost all hope of abolishing capital punishment. In the face of an extraordinary run of federal executions over the past six months, they have been left to wonder whether the court is prepared to play any role in capital cases beyond hastening executions. Until July, there had been no federal executions in 17 years . Since then, the Trump administration has executed 13 inmates, more than three times as many as the federal government had put to death in the previous six decades.

The article goes on to explain that Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissent on Friday as the Supreme Court cleared the way for the last execution of the Trump era, complaining that it had not sufficiently resolved legal questions that inmates had asked. The article continues:

If Justice Breyer sounded rueful, it was because he had just a few years ago held out hope that the court would reconsider the constitutionality of capital punishment. He had set out his arguments in a major dissent in 2015 , one that must have been on Justice Scalia’s mind when he made his comments a few months later. Justice Breyer wrote in that 46-page dissent that he considered it “highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment,” which bars cruel and unusual punishments. He said that death row exonerations were frequent, that death sentences were imposed arbitrarily and that the capital justice system was marred by racial discrimination. Justice Breyer added that there was little reason to think that the death penalty deterred crime and that long delays between sentences and executions might themselves violate the Eighth Amendment. Most of the country did not use the death penalty, he said, and the United States was an international outlier in embracing it. Justice Ginsburg, who died in September, had joined the dissent. The two other liberals — Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — were undoubtedly sympathetic. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who held the decisive vote in many closely divided cases until his retirement in 2018, had written the majority opinions in several 5-to-4 decisions that imposed limits on the death penalty, including ones barring the execution of juvenile offenders and people convicted of crimes other than murder .

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

Click the buttons below to view arguments and testimony on each topic.

The death penalty deters future murders.

Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.

For years, criminologists analyzed murder rates to see if they fluctuated with the likelihood of convicted murderers being executed, but the results were inconclusive. Then in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies.

Moreover, even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, that is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has studied the question of deterrence closely, wrote: “Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks.”

Finally, the death penalty certainly “deters” the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, either in prison, or in society if they should get out. Both as a deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.

States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas’s executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, “It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you’ll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse.”

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A 2012 report released by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies and based on a review of more than three decades of research, concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy, Fordham University. Excerpts from ” The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense,” (Harvard Law Review Association, 1986)

“Execution of those who have committed heinous murders may deter only one murder per year. If it does, it seems quite warranted. It is also the only fitting retribution for murder I can think of.”

“Most abolitionists acknowledge that they would continue to favor abolition even if the death penalty were shown to deter more murders than alternatives could deter. Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers.

Deterrence is not altogether decisive for me either. I would favor retention of the death penalty as retribution even if it were shown that the threat of execution could not deter prospective murderers not already deterred by the threat of imprisonment. Still, I believe the death penalty, because of its finality, is more feared than imprisonment, and deters some prospective murderers not deterred by the thought of imprisonment. Sparing the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibility, or even the probability, that executing them would not deter others. Whereas the life of the victims who might be saved are valuable, that of the murderer has only negative value, because of his crime. Surely the criminal law is meant to protect the lives of potential victims in preference to those of actual murderers.”

“We threaten punishments in order to deter crime. We impose them not only to make the threats credible but also as retribution (justice) for the crimes that were not deterred. Threats and punishments are necessary to deter and deterrence is a sufficient practical justification for them. Retribution is an independent moral justification. Although penalties can be unwise, repulsive, or inappropriate, and those punished can be pitiable, in a sense the infliction of legal punishment on a guilty person cannot be unjust. By committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a legal punishment that he could have avoided by not committing the crime. The punishment he suffers is the punishment he voluntarily risked suffering and, therefore, it is no more unjust to him than any other event for which one knowingly volunteers to assume the risk. Thus, the death penalty cannot be unjust to the guilty criminal.”

Full text can be found at PBS.org .

Hugo Adam Bedau (deceased) Austin Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, Tufts University Excerpts from “The Case Against The Death Penalty” (Copyright 1997, American Civil Liberties Union)

“Persons who commit murder and other crimes of personal violence either may or may not premeditate their crimes.

When crime is planned, the criminal ordinarily concentrates on escaping detection, arrest, and conviction. The threat of even the severest punishment will not discourage those who expect to escape detection and arrest. It is impossible to imagine how the threat of any punishment could prevent a crime that is not premeditated….

Most capital crimes are committed in the heat of the moment. Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended. In such cases, violence is inflicted by persons heedless of the consequences to themselves as well as to others….

If, however, severe punishment can deter crime, then long-term imprisonment is severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime.

The vast preponderance of the evidence shows that the death penalty is no more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder and that it may even be an incitement to criminal violence. Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death-penalty states….

On-duty police officers do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide in abolitionist states than they do in death-penalty states. Between l973 and l984, for example, lethal assaults against police were not significantly more, or less, frequent in abolitionist states than in death-penalty states. There is ‘no support for the view that the death penalty provides a more effective deterrent to police homicides than alternative sanctions. Not for a single year was evidence found that police are safer in jurisdictions that provide for capital punishment.’ (Bailey and Peterson, Criminology (1987))

Prisoners and prison personnel do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide from life-term prisoners in abolition states than they do in death-penalty states. Between 1992 and 1995, 176 inmates were murdered by other prisoners; the vast majority (84%) were killed in death penalty jurisdictions. During the same period about 2% of all assaults on prison staff were committed by inmates in abolition jurisdictions. Evidently, the threat of the death penalty ‘does not even exert an incremental deterrent effect over the threat of a lesser punishment in the abolitionist states.’ (Wolfson, in Bedau, ed., The Death Penalty in America, 3rd ed. (1982))

Actual experience thus establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty does not deter murder. No comparable body of evidence contradicts that conclusion.”

Click here for the full text from the ACLU website.

Retribution

A just society requires the taking of a life for a life.

When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer’s life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind.

Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that it is proper to take an “eye for an eye” and a life for a life.

Although the victim and the victim’s family cannot be restored to the status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closure to the murderer’s crime (and closure to the ordeal for the victim’s family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more victims.

For the most cruel and heinous crimes, the ones for which the death penalty is applied, offenders deserve the worst punishment under our system of law, and that is the death penalty. Any lesser punishment would undermine the value society places on protecting lives.

Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, described his concept of the need for retribution in one case: “In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.”

Retribution is another word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict immediate pain on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a mature society demand a more measured response.

The emotional impulse for revenge is not a sufficient justification for invoking a system of capital punishment, with all its accompanying problems and risks. Our laws and criminal justice system should lead us to higher principles that demonstrate a complete respect for life, even the life of a murderer. Encouraging our basest motives of revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of violence. Allowing executions sanctions killing as a form of ‘pay-back.’

Many victims’ families denounce the use of the death penalty. Using an execution to try to right the wrong of their loss is an affront to them and only causes more pain. For example, Bud Welch’s daughter, Julie, was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Although his first reaction was to wish that those who committed this terrible crime be killed, he ultimately realized that such killing “is simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed Julie…. Vengeance is a strong and natural emotion. But it has no place in our justice system.”

The notion of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life, is a simplistic one which our society has never endorsed. We do not allow torturing the torturer, or raping the rapist. Taking the life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment, especially in light of the fact that the U.S. executes only a small percentage of those convicted of murder, and these defendants are typically not the worst offenders but merely the ones with the fewest resources to defend themselves.

Louis P. Pojman Author and Professor of Philosophy, U.S. Military Academy. Excerpt from “The Death Penalty: For and Against,” (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1998)

“[Opponents of the capital punishment often put forth the following argument:] Perhaps the murderer deserves to die, but what authority does the state have to execute him or her? Both the Old and New Testament says, “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Prov. 25:21 and Romans 12:19). You need special authority to justify taking the life of a human being.

The objector fails to note that the New Testament passage continues with a support of the right of the state to execute criminals in the name of God: “Let every person be subjected to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment…. If you do wrong, be afraid, for [the authority] does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13: 1-4). So, according to the Bible, the authority to punish, which presumably includes the death penalty, comes from God.

But we need not appeal to a religious justification for capital punishment. We can site the state’s role in dispensing justice. Just as the state has the authority (and duty) to act justly in allocating scarce resources, in meeting minimal needs of its (deserving) citizens, in defending its citizens from violence and crime, and in not waging unjust wars; so too does it have the authority, flowing from its mission to promote justice and the good of its people, to punish the criminal. If the criminal, as one who has forfeited a right to life, deserves to be executed, especially if it will likely deter would-be murderers, the state has a duty to execute those convicted of first-degree murder.”

National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Excerpts from “To End the Death Penalty: A Report of the National Jewish/Catholic Consultation” (December, 1999)

“Some would argue that the death penalty is needed as a means of retributive justice, to balance out the crime with the punishment. This reflects a natural concern of society, and especially of victims and their families. Yet we believe that we are called to seek a higher road even while punishing the guilty, for example through long and in some cases life-long incarceration, so that the healing of all can ultimately take place.

Some would argue that the death penalty will teach society at large the seriousness of crime. Yet we say that teaching people to respond to violence with violence will, again, only breed more violence.

The strongest argument of all [in favor of the death penalty] is the deep pain and grief of the families of victims, and their quite natural desire to see punishment meted out to those who have plunged them into such agony. Yet it is the clear teaching of our traditions that this pain and suffering cannot be healed simply through the retribution of capital punishment or by vengeance. It is a difficult and long process of healing which comes about through personal growth and God’s grace. We agree that much more must be done by the religious community and by society at large to solace and care for the grieving families of the victims of violent crime.

Recent statements of the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism, and of the U.S. Catholic Conference sum up well the increasingly strong convictions shared by Jews and Catholics…:

‘Respect for all human life and opposition to the violence in our society are at the root of our long-standing opposition (as bishops) to the death penalty. We see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. As we said in Confronting the Culture of Violence: ‘We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.’ We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes, but for what it does to all of us as a society. Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life.’1

We affirm that we came to these conclusions because of our shared understanding of the sanctity of human life. We have committed ourselves to work together, and each within our own communities, toward ending the death penalty.” Endnote 1. Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Catholic Conference, March 24, 1999.

The risk of executing the innocent precludes the use of the death penalty.

The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, over 180 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 1,500 people have been executed. Thus, for every 8.3 people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. These statistics represent an intolerable risk of executing the innocent. If an automobile manufacturer operated with similar failure rates, it would be run out of business.

Our capital punishment system is unreliable. A study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted.

Many of the releases of innocent defendants from death row came about as a result of factors outside of the justice system. Recently, journalism students in Illinois were assigned to investigate the case of a man who was scheduled to be executed, after the system of appeals had rejected his legal claims. The students discovered that one witness had lied at the original trial, and they were able to find another man, who confessed to the crime on videotape and was later convicted of the murder. The innocent man who was released was very fortunate, but he was spared because of the informal efforts of concerned citizens, not because of the justice system.

In other cases, DNA testing has exonerated death row inmates. Here, too, the justice system had concluded that these defendants were guilty and deserving of the death penalty. DNA testing became available only in the early 1990s, due to advancements in science. If this testing had not been discovered until ten years later, many of these inmates would have been executed. And if DNA testing had been applied to earlier cases where inmates were executed in the 1970s and 80s, the odds are high that it would have proven that some of them were innocent as well.

Society takes many risks in which innocent lives can be lost. We build bridges, knowing that statistically some workers will be killed during construction; we take great precautions to reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful executions are a preventable risk. By substituting a sentence of life without parole, we meet society’s needs of punishment and protection without running the risk of an erroneous and irrevocable punishment.

There is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to our death penalty system in the 1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are very rare. Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If improvements are needed in the system of representation, or in the use of scientific evidence such as DNA testing, then those reforms should be instituted. However, the need for reform is not a reason to abolish the death penalty.

Besides, many of the claims of innocence by those who have been released from death row are actually based on legal technicalities. Just because someone’s conviction is overturned years later and the prosecutor decides not to retry him, does not mean he is actually innocent.

If it can be shown that someone is innocent, surely a governor would grant clemency and spare the person. Hypothetical claims of innocence are usually just delaying tactics to put off the execution as long as possible. Given our thorough system of appeals through numerous state and federal courts, the execution of an innocent individual today is almost impossible. Even the theoretical execution of an innocent person can be justified because the death penalty saves lives by deterring other killings.

Gerald Kogan, Former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Excerpts from a speech given in Orlando, Florida, October 23, 1999 “[T]here is no question in my mind, and I can tell you this having seen the dynamics of our criminal justice system over the many years that I have been associated with it, [as] prosecutor, defense attorney, trial judge and Supreme Court Justice, that convinces me that we certainly have, in the past, executed those people who either didn’t fit the criteria for execution in the State of Florida or who, in fact, were, factually, not guilty of the crime for which they have been executed.

“And you can make these statements when you understand the dynamics of the criminal justice system, when you understand how the State makes deals with more culpable defendants in a capital case, offers them light sentences in exchange for their testimony against another participant or, in some cases, in fact, gives them immunity from prosecution so that they can secure their testimony; the use of jailhouse confessions, like people who say, ‘I was in the cell with so-and-so and they confessed to me,’ or using those particular confessions, the validity of which there has been great doubt. And yet, you see the uneven application of the death penalty where, in many instances, those that are the most culpable escape death and those that are the least culpable are victims of the death penalty. These things begin to weigh very heavily upon you. And under our system, this is the system we have. And that is, we are human beings administering an imperfect system.”

“And how about those people who are still sitting on death row today, who may be factually innocent but cannot prove their particular case very simply because there is no DNA evidence in their case that can be used to exonerate them? Of course, in most cases, you’re not going to have that kind of DNA evidence, so there is no way and there is no hope for them to be saved from what may be one of the biggest mistakes that our society can make.”

The entire speech by Justice Kogan is available here.

Paul G. Cassell Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah, College of Law, and former law clerk to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. Statement before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights Concerning Claims of Innocence in Capital Cases (July 23, 1993)

“Given the fallibility of human judgments, the possibility exists that the use of capital punishment may result in the execution of an innocent person. The Senate Judiciary Committee has previously found this risk to be ‘minimal,’ a view shared by numerous scholars. As Justice Powell has noted commenting on the numerous state capital cases that have come before the Supreme Court, the ‘unprecedented safeguards’ already inherent in capital sentencing statutes ‘ensure a degree of care in the imposition of the sentence of death that can only be described as unique.’”

“Our present system of capital punishment limits the ultimate penalty to certain specifically-defined crimes and even then, permit the penalty of death only when the jury finds that the aggravating circumstances in the case outweigh all mitigating circumstances. The system further provides judicial review of capital cases. Finally, before capital sentences are carried out, the governor or other executive official will review the sentence to insure that it is a just one, a determination that undoubtedly considers the evidence of the condemned defendant’s guilt. Once all of those decisionmakers have agreed that a death sentence is appropriate, innocent lives would be lost from failure to impose the sentence.”

“Capital sentences, when carried out, save innocent lives by permanently incapacitating murderers. Some persons who commit capital homicide will slay other innocent persons if given the opportunity to do so. The death penalty is the most effective means of preventing such killers from repeating their crimes. The next most serious penalty, life imprisonment without possibility of parole, prevents murderers from committing some crimes but does not prevent them from murdering in prison.”

“The mistaken release of guilty murderers should be of far greater concern than the speculative and heretofore nonexistent risk of the mistaken execution of an innocent person.”

Full text can be found here.

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used.

In practice, the death penalty does not single out the worst offenders. Rather, it selects an arbitrary group based on such irrational factors as the quality of the defense counsel, the county in which the crime was committed, or the race of the defendant or victim.

Almost all defendants facing the death penalty cannot afford their own attorney. Hence, they are dependent on the quality of the lawyers assigned by the state, many of whom lack experience in capital cases or are so underpaid that they fail to investigate the case properly. A poorly represented defendant is much more likely to be convicted and given a death sentence.

With respect to race, studies have repeatedly shown that a death sentence is far more likely where a white person is murdered than where a Black person is murdered. The death penalty is racially divisive because it appears to count white lives as more valuable than Black lives. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 296 Black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white victim, while only 31 white defendants have been executed for the murder of a Black victim. Such racial disparities have existed over the history of the death penalty and appear to be largely intractable.

It is arbitrary when someone in one county or state receives the death penalty, but someone who commits a comparable crime in another county or state is given a life sentence. Prosecutors have enormous discretion about when to seek the death penalty and when to settle for a plea bargain. Often those who can only afford a minimal defense are selected for the death penalty. Until race and other arbitrary factors, like economics and geography, can be eliminated as a determinant of who lives and who dies, the death penalty must not be used.

Discretion has always been an essential part of our system of justice. No one expects the prosecutor to pursue every possible offense or punishment, nor do we expect the same sentence to be imposed just because two crimes appear similar. Each crime is unique, both because the circumstances of each victim are different and because each defendant is different. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a mandatory death penalty which applied to everyone convicted of first degree murder would be unconstitutional. Hence, we must give prosecutors and juries some discretion.

In fact, more white people are executed in this country than black people. And even if blacks are disproportionately represented on death row, proportionately blacks commit more murders than whites. Moreover, the Supreme Court has rejected the use of statistical studies which claim racial bias as the sole reason for overturning a death sentence.

Even if the death penalty punishes some while sparing others, it does not follow that everyone should be spared. The guilty should still be punished appropriately, even if some do escape proper punishment unfairly. The death penalty should apply to killers of black people as well as to killers of whites. High paid, skillful lawyers should not be able to get some defendants off on technicalities. The existence of some systemic problems is no reason to abandon the whole death penalty system.

Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. President and Chief Executive Officer, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Inc. Excerpt from “Legal Lynching: Racism, Injustice & the Death Penalty,” (Marlowe & Company, 1996)

“Who receives the death penalty has less to do with the violence of the crime than with the color of the criminal’s skin, or more often, the color of the victim’s skin. Murder — always tragic — seems to be a more heinous and despicable crime in some states than in others. Women who kill and who are killed are judged by different standards than are men who are murderers and victims.

The death penalty is essentially an arbitrary punishment. There are no objective rules or guidelines for when a prosecutor should seek the death penalty, when a jury should recommend it, and when a judge should give it. This lack of objective, measurable standards ensures that the application of the death penalty will be discriminatory against racial, gender, and ethnic groups.

The majority of Americans who support the death penalty believe, or wish to believe, that legitimate factors such as the violence and cruelty with which the crime was committed, a defendant’s culpability or history of violence, and the number of victims involved determine who is sentenced to life in prison and who receives the ultimate punishment. The numbers, however, tell a different story. They confirm the terrible truth that bias and discrimination warp our nation’s judicial system at the very time it matters most — in matters of life and death. The factors that determine who will live and who will die — race, sex, and geography — are the very same ones that blind justice was meant to ignore. This prejudicial distribution should be a moral outrage to every American.”

Justice Lewis Powell United States Supreme Court Justice excerpts from McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (footnotes and citations omitted)

(Mr. McCleskey, a black man, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1978 for killing a white police officer while robbing a store. Mr. McCleskey appealed his conviction and death sentence, claiming racial discrimination in the application of Georgia’s death penalty. He presented statistical analysis showing a pattern of sentencing disparities based primarily on the race of the victim. The analysis indicated that black defendants who killed white victims had the greatest likelihood of receiving the death penalty. Writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice Powell held that statistical studies on race by themselves were an insufficient basis for overturning the death penalty.)

“[T]he claim that [t]his sentence rests on the irrelevant factor of race easily could be extended to apply to claims based on unexplained discrepancies that correlate to membership in other minority groups, and even to gender. Similarly, since [this] claim relates to the race of his victim, other claims could apply with equally logical force to statistical disparities that correlate with the race or sex of other actors in the criminal justice system, such as defense attorneys or judges. Also, there is no logical reason that such a claim need be limited to racial or sexual bias. If arbitrary and capricious punishment is the touchstone under the Eighth Amendment, such a claim could — at least in theory — be based upon any arbitrary variable, such as the defendant’s facial characteristics, or the physical attractiveness of the defendant or the victim, that some statistical study indicates may be influential in jury decision making. As these examples illustrate, there is no limiting principle to the type of challenge brought by McCleskey. The Constitution does not require that a State eliminate any demonstrable disparity that correlates with a potentially irrelevant factor in order to operate a criminal justice system that includes capital punishment. As we have stated specifically in the context of capital punishment, the Constitution does not ‘plac[e] totally unrealistic conditions on its use.’ (Gregg v. Georgia)”

The entire decision can be found here.

Wrongful Death: How to Prove Legally That Death Was Wrongful Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Wrongful death arises when an individual perishes due to inattentiveness or delinquency of another person, establishment or entity. People acting on wrongful death are the decedent’s close affiliates encompassing the surviving partner, parents or children. Every state possesses a unique set of statues that are the main procedures during a wrongful death but the most used encompass scenarios when the decedent’s personal representatives convey wrongful death suit. The personal representative also presents the injuries involved, pain experienced, suffering that the plaintiff and decedent underwent together with the involved costs before the decedent’s death. Damage rewards from the actions goes to the estate, various parties, as the decedents will’ indicate and the estate. In order for “a wrongful death” basis of action to be successful, there must be death of an individual caused by negligence and a surviving member undergoing pain attributable to the decedent’s death (Anderson & Gardner, 2009).

On 23 January 2012, the plaintiff, 23, a retired guardian was driving in Wingdale on Old Route 32 adjacent to the intersection near the Cricket Hill Road. The decedent was a front-seat traveler. As the plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection, its front collided with the coming truck making a leftward turn towards Cricket Hill Road. The plaintiff experienced hip, rib, leg and foot injuries while his wife died. The plaintiff sued the vehicle’s driver, County and the driver’s defendant on behalf of the decedent’s estate and as a family member. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was inattentive in his vehicles operation and blamed that the county for its careless upkeep of intersection since his pitiable intersection view was attributable to overgrown vegetation poorly maintained by the county (Air Force, 2011).

The accident resulted to the death of plaintiff’s wife leaving her husband and five children. As such, there should be recovery of damages to her estate, incurred funeral expenses, future forfeiture of household facilities and the costs of the injuries that the plaintiff experienced. The plaintiff also made claims for his previous and forthcoming suffering (Air Force, 2011).

According to expert witness, Dr. Griffins, the plaintiff got various injuries to his hip born, foot and leg because of the motor vehicle crash, which also resulted to the death of plaintiff’s wife. The expert witness, Dr. Griffins, alleges that on 23 January 2012, the plaintiff was driving in Wingdale on Old Route 32 adjacent to the intersection near the Cricket Hill Road. The decedent was seating in a front-seat when the plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection. Its front collided with the coming pick up that was making a leftward turn towards Cricket Hill Road. The plaintiff was unconscious for some few weeks in a hospital where the doctor diagnosed mental discourse as well as leg, foot and hip sprain with serious pain. At first, the plaintiff’s pain experienced in his leg, hip and foot reduced, but with time, he started to experience the same pain, which led the proposal for surgery (Garland, 2011).

Expert witness alleges that the plaintiff’s accident was attributable to the truck driver’s negligence and recklessness (Air Force, 2011). He says that the truck driver was careless in his driving because his motor vehicle was moving at a risky and extreme speed. The extreme speed led to collision since he could not control it. As such, he failed to scrutinize required road safety stipulates and precautions for him to manage the vehicle. Expert witness continues that the truck driver failed to lookout carefully for other vehicles that were approaching the intersection thus causing the collision that left the plaintiff badly injured and his wife dead.

The rendering expert witness equally indicated that it was the carelessness and negligence of the defendant that led to the plaintiff receiving painful and permanent injuries on his body, suffering mental anguish, emotional distress and reducing his gratification level. He alleges that for the plaintiff to lessen the pains and injuries he underwent frequent medical treatment increasing his medical expenditures and expenses. The accident made the plaintiff to stop participating in his daily routine making him lose earnings. The expert witness insists that had it not been for the recklessness and negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff would have shunned suffering all the losses (Air Force, 2011).

Finally, expert witness alleges that the poor management of the intersection by the county also contributed to the plaintiff’s accident. He says that intersection had overgrown vegetation, which made the plaintiff’s vision blur thus disabling his vision, which led to collision with the speeding truck. He insists that if the intersection could be clear, the plaintiff would have shunned the truck thus escaping from the tremendous loss.

The first fact witness, Mr. Bolton of Avenue park estate, was driving in Wingdale on Old Route 32 adjacent to the intersection near the Cricket Hill Road just behind the Plaintiff 23’s car during the collision. Mr. Bolton alleges that the truck, which collided with the claimant’s car was over-speeding while making the left turn towards the Cricket Hill road where the plaintiff was coming from. He says that the mishap could be stoppable if the truck driver would have observed all the safety measures. He concludes that the carelessness of the truck driver is the main cause of the plaintiff’s hurting, suffering and loss of his wife. He added that after the accident, the ambulance transported the plaintiff to the hospital when unconscious and his wife died on the spot. People who were interested in knowing more on the situation crowded the accident scene (Rapalie, 2007).

Mr. Bolton also apportions the blame to the county. He says that the road intersection is very unkempt making it challenging for vehicles approaching from dissimilar directions to view the way clearly. He says that the plaintiff would have avoided the crash if his view had been unblemished. He would have dodged pitfalls consequently avoiding the demise of his wife.

The second fact witness was Mr. Bruce, a pedestrian who was waiting for pedestrian signal to turn green on pedestrian sidewalk isle at the time of the accident. The second fact witness saw the plaintiff car making a right turn from the Cricket Hill road at the intersection where it bumped into a truck making a left spin towards the Cricket Hill Road. The second fact witness blames the truck driver because he was to be careful while driving by not over speeding and paying full thought to the road for him to avoid such accidents. He says that the truck driver was supposed to drive at recommended speed and control the vehicle so that he avoids collision (Air Force, 2011).

The witness, Mr. Bruce insists that due to improper attention while driving, bad lookout and failing to follow the traffic laws led to the truck driver not controlling the collision. Because of the truck driver’s slackness, the plaintiff suffered physical injuries causing him long lasting mental anguish and loss of his wife. The witness also blames the County for failing to maintain the intersection thus resulting to poor view, which caused the collision.

As a defense attorney, I will impeach the first Expert witness as irrelevant because the witness was not at the accident scene during collision. Therefore, his testimonies will not make any effect to the lawsuit as they depend on indirect information. Expert witness is not a profession in this field because he has deficiencies in knowledge and skills concerning such a lawsuit. There are also instances of inadequate evidence and the expert presented data are unreliable (Air Force, 2011).

I will impeach the first and second fact witness as inappropriate because the first witness was driving his car and the second witness was focusing on traffic lights. Therefore, all their attentions were directed to unlike directions and not the plaintiff’s view. These witnesses issued assumptions because they described the truck driver as careless and negligent yet they never met him in person. Finally, these witnesses focused on their personal opinions and feelings instead of considering any actual information on the reputation of the truck driver (Air Force, 2011).

When dealing with a motor vehicle complaint on wrongful death, it is vital to express to the board when the lawsuit involves a lasting injury thus address the total period the plaintiff will suffer from the injuries. It is also crucial to convey that though the plaintiff reward will be compensated instantaneously, it should encompass the total future suffering of a plaintiff. If employment is the main cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, the compensation should emanate from the workers compensation insurance to cater for the treatment costs.

Air Force. (2011). Court-Marital Report of the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force . Lexington, UK: LLMC

Anderson, T. & Gardner, T. (2009). Criminal Evidence: Principle and Cases . Florence, KY: Cengage Learning

Garland, N. (2011). Criminal evidence. (6 th Ed.) . New York, NY: McGraw Hill

Rapalie, S. (2007). A Treatise on the Law of Witnesses . Buffalo, NY: Wm. S. Hein Publishing.

• Impact of Specialization and Evolution in Law
• Exploring the Various Aspects of Law Evidence
• Negligence in the Criminal Justice System
• Liability for Wrongful Conduct of Independent Contractor of a Healthcare Organization
• "Wrongful Convictions Do Lower Deterrence" by Garoupa et al.
• Legal Aspect in the Case of ‘The Happy Hour Sports Bar’
• The Canadian Civil Law: The Case of ‘The Happy Hour Sports Bar’
• Criminal Justice Professionals: What They Should Know
• M:Malott and A:Fromader "Male Inmate Perspective..." Review
• Gender, Diversity and the Law
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 27). Wrongful Death: How to Prove Legally That Death Was Wrongful. https://ivypanda.com/essays/wrongful-death-how-to-prove-legally-that-death-was-wrongful/

"Wrongful Death: How to Prove Legally That Death Was Wrongful." IvyPanda , 27 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/wrongful-death-how-to-prove-legally-that-death-was-wrongful/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Wrongful Death: How to Prove Legally That Death Was Wrongful'. 27 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Wrongful Death: How to Prove Legally That Death Was Wrongful." April 27, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/wrongful-death-how-to-prove-legally-that-death-was-wrongful/.

1. IvyPanda . "Wrongful Death: How to Prove Legally That Death Was Wrongful." April 27, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/wrongful-death-how-to-prove-legally-that-death-was-wrongful/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Wrongful Death: How to Prove Legally That Death Was Wrongful." April 27, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/wrongful-death-how-to-prove-legally-that-death-was-wrongful/.

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Ethics — Should the Death Penalty Be Legal?

Should The Death Penalty Be Legal?

• Categories: Death Penalty Ethics

About this sample

Words: 649 |

Published: Jun 6, 2024

Words: 649 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, arguments for the death penalty, arguments against the death penalty, practical considerations and alternatives.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 913 words

2 pages / 860 words

3 pages / 1447 words

2 pages / 799 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Ethics

In Harper Lee's novel "To Kill a Mockingbird," one of the most memorable characters is Atticus Finch, a lawyer who defends Tom Robinson, a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. Atticus's decision to take on this [...]

One is often confronted with various challenges and decisions that require careful consideration. The choices made during these times could potentially shape the course of their life, and it is therefore essential to approach [...]

As individuals, our values shape our beliefs, guide our decisions, and influence our actions. Our personal values are the principles that we hold dear and that define who we are. In this essay, I will explore the development of [...]

Drug addiction is a complex and pervasive issue that affects millions of individuals worldwide. It not only harms the individual struggling with addiction but also has far-reaching consequences for their families, communities, [...]

Ethics is what defines a person’s character. How a person should behave in the society. But how do we justify our acts as ethical? An idea suggests that an act is ethical if it is benefiting the greatest number of people. While [...]

In ethics, ethical relativism is one of the most controversial topics. In fact, many known ethicists reject and completely neglect the theory. They believe that even though moral practices in societies may differ, the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Client Testimonials
• Lawyer Testimonials
• News Articles
• Bike Accidents
• Car Accidents
• Distracted Driver Accidents
• Motorcycle Accidents
• Pedestrian Accidents
• Public Transportation Accidents
• Truck Accidents
• Fraud and Deceit
• Breach of Contract
• Partnership Disputes
• Amputation Injury
• Brain Injury
• Burn Injury
• Paraplegia Injury
• Spinal Cord Injury
• Wrongful Death
• Intubation Errors
• Medication Error Attorney
• Monitoring Errors
• Cerebral Palsy
• Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE)
• Pregnancy Misdiagnosis
• Seizure Disorders
• Unrecognized Fetal Distress
• Burn Injuries
• Emergency Room Errors
• Hospital Injury
• Kaiser Medical Malpractice
• Medical Battery
• Dosage Errors
• Pharmaceutical Injury
• Prescription Drug Injuries
• Cancer Misdiagnosis
• Failure to Diagnose
• Heart Attack
• Failure to Monitor
• Surgical Errors
• Dental Malpractice
• Legal Malpractice
• Accounting Malpractice
• Sexual Assault and Rape
• Medication Errors
• Dosage Error
• Pharmacy Errors
• Medical Malpractice Guide
• Opioid Rehab Center Guide
• Birth Injury Guide
• Riverside County

What are the Four Liabilities Where Someone Can Be Held Accountable for Wrongful Death?

What is a Wrongful Death? 

A wrongful death occurs when one party’s actions, misconduct, or neglect cause another person’s death. Common examples of wrongful death include, but are not limited to: 

• Medical malpractice
• Car accidents
• Intentional murder
• Defective products 

Generally, a party can file a wrongful death claim against another in circumstances where the victim (who could have filed a personal injury suit had that person survived) is killed as a result of the “wrongful” actions of another party. 

Understanding The Four Liabilities 

All mistakes that cause death are not viewed equally in the eyes of the law. Under California law, for example, there are four levels of a person’s “mens rea” or state of mind that impact the criminal and/or civil liability that a person may face for causing the wrongful death of another person. 

Generally, a person (including medical providers) may be liable for wrongful death if a judge or jury concludes that the person who caused the death did so by acting under one of the four following ways: 

• Intentional conduct
• Reckless Indifference
• Strict Liability

Intentional Conduct — Intentional conduct occurs when one person intentionally kills another. In that case, they can be held both criminally and civilly liable for the person’s death. 

Reckless Indifference — Reckless indifference includes situations where an individual understood (or should have understood) that their actions were likely to cause injury or death. 

Negligence — Physicians, police officers, and even people involved in car accidents owe others a varying “duty of care” depending on the situation. If one party fails to provide adequate care to another by accident, not paying proper attention or carelessness, they can be held liable under a theory of negligence. 

Strict Liability — In rare circumstances, California’s strict liability laws allow the family of the deceased to seek damages for wrongful death even where the party who caused the death was not negligent or reckless. 

What is the Difference Between Reckless Indifference and Negligence? 

Generally, the difference between reckless indifference and negligence is that reckless behavior causes dire or catastrophic consequences in circumstances where that person knew or should have known that their actions were either inherently dangerous or were very likely to cause serious injury or death (i.e., playing Russian roulette). Negligence, by contrast, involves situations where normal (and not inherently dangerous) conduct is engaged in by a person, but something goes wrong which then causes injury or death. 

For example, purposely running a red light and causing another person’s death could be considered reckless. On the other hand, an individual searching for something under their seat who mistakenly runs a red light and causes another person’s death would likely be considered negligent. 

Contact a Wrongful Death Attorney

If you’ve lost a loved one due to a wrongful death, you deserve justice. Working with a skilled wrongful death attorney can drastically increase your chances of receiving maximum compensation in a wrongful death personal injury case. 

If you’re loved one has suffered a wrongful death at the hands of a physician, reckless driver, or otherwise guilty party, you may be eligible to seek compensation for their untimely death. Contact the Trial Law Offices of Bradley I. Kramer, M.D., ESQ. , for your free initial consultation with a wrongful death attorney you can trust.

You have know idea how happy you have made me and Travis. I am so happy this is over and I can move on with my life! Thank you for all you have done for me and my family.

While it is very little, it is the most that could be done. Great job, Bradley! We very much appreciate the fact that you agreed to take this case for the family in light of the recovery.

We greatly appreciate all that you have done to help bring this matter to a close. As you said, it is bittersweet, but I think the struggle has brought some measure of peace to our family. Thank you Brad for all that you have done.

Brad, Thank you for your services–you were wonderful to work with!

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Your Message

More From Forbes

Disney’s not-so-magical lawsuit could have major implications for wrongful death victims.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

In February of 2024, Jeffrey Piccolo filed a $50,000 wrongful death lawsuit against Walt Disney ... [+] Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc. and Raglan Road on behalf of his late wife.

Contributing Author: John J. Perlstein

Walt Disney World® Resort has long prided itself on being the “most magical place on Earth,” but a recent tragedy has left one family far from their happily ever after - and could set significant precedents that impact the rights and avenues to justice for wrongful death victims and their families and estates.

A Fatal Allergen Reaction

On October 5, 2023, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, her husband, and her mother dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub, a restaurant located in the “Disney Springs” outdoor shopping complex in Orlando, Florida. Dr. Tangsuan was one of millions of individuals affected by severe dairy and nut allergies, and allegedly chose Raglan Road because both Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc (WDPR) and Raglan Road “advertised and represented to the public that food allergies and/or the accommodation of persons with food allergies were a top priority and that patrons/guests could consult with a chef and/or special diets trained Cast Member before placing a food order.”

With assurance from the staff that her meal would be allergen-free, Dr. Tangsuan consumed broccoli and corn fritters, onion rings, scallops, and vegan shepherd's pie. Nearly an hour later, a 911 call was received after Dr. Tangsuan experienced difficulty breathing, self-injected her EpiPen, and then collapsed in a nearby Disney Springs store. Dr. Tangsuan was rushed to a nearby hospital and sadly, succumbed to her reaction that evening. Her cause of death was ruled to be an anaphylaxis reaction due to the "elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system."

Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan suffered an anaphylaxis reaction after dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, wrongful death lawsuit and forced arbitration.

In February of 2024, her spouse, Jeffrey Piccolo, filed a $50,000 wrongful death lawsuit against WDPR and Raglan Road for damages including medical and funeral expenses, mental pain and suffering, and the loss of income stemming from this fatality. In its initial response , Disney denied liability, alleging that it only served as a landlord to the Raglan Road pub. However, in a controversial move that has sparked significant backlash, Disney asked the Florida court to send the case to arbitration in August 2024, claiming that Piccolo waived his rights to sue the company when he briefly signed up for a Disney+ trial in 2019.

The contract Piccolo signed as part of the Disney+ streaming service’s one-month free trial outlined that all legal disputes with Disney must be settled outside of court through arbitration, a process that involves a neutral third party who reviews arguments without a jury before coming to a binding conclusion that once decided, cannot be challenged again. Disney’s response to the lawsuit maintained that Piccolo not only agreed to this when signing up for Disney+ but also when he purchased tickets for the theme park through Disney’s website, which required him to sign up for an account and agree to terms once again.

The Plaintiff’s legal team argued that Piccolo agreed to Disney+’s arbitration claims on a trial basis, given his cancellation of services prior to the conclusion of the free trial, and thus, would not have been in contract with Disney at the time of this incident. Secondly, while the “Disney Terms of Use,” (which Piccolo allegedly agreed to in his Disney+ trial) enforces the arbitration clause, the “My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions,” (which Piccolo allegedly agreed to when purchasing the 2023 Epcot tickets) do not “contain an arbitration provision but rather expressly contemplate that the parties may file lawsuits and requires those suits to be filed in Orange County, Florida and to be governed by Florida law.” According to Disney’s legal code, the “My Disney Experience Terms” are the default in cases where the two governances conflict, meaning Piccolo would indeed have the right to pursue his wrongful death case in Florida court.

Disney filed to send the case to arbitration in August 2024, claiming that Piccolo waived his rights ... [+] to sue the company when he briefly signed up for a Disney+ trial in 2019.

Rights of the Victim and Estate

Most interestingly, the Plaintiff raised the argument that The Estate of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan was not bound to any of these terms due to the fact that Dr. Tangsuan did not sign any agreements and her Estate was not in existence at the time of the incident, even if Piccolo is the acting executor of the estate. This argument extends beyond Disney’s bylaws and raises attention to a bigger issue: can personal injury and wrongful death cases be reliant upon waivers and conditions the victim (and their future estate) did not explicitly agree to? If the answer is concluded to be yes, then the rights of victims (and in cases of the deceased, their estate) will be severely constrained going forward.

Following the swift backlash from the public over its insensitivity and the response from the Plaintiff, Disney filed a notice to withdraw the motion to enforce the arbitration clause last week.

What This May Mean For Accident Victims and Families

While this shocking turn of events is clearly motivated by public perception and Disney’s desire to save face following a period of intense scrutiny, it could have significant implications for contractual disputes in wrongful death lawsuits moving forward. As of 2024, more than 150 million customers have signed up for Disney+ and have waived their rights to sue the company in any capacity, especially in matters as serious as wrongful death in situations unrelated to the streaming service itself. Now that Disney has retracted their stance in this particular case, it could certainly open the door for other individuals to argue that the terms of their contract do not hold up.

The case will appear before the Orlando court on October 2, 2024. While it is yet unknown whether Disney will revert to its aggressive defensive stance in the court or favor public opinion as loyal fans and customers watch closely, the case could set a new precedent, not only for Disney, but for wrongful death suits as a whole. And while Piccolo and Dr. Tangsuan may not have their fairytale, perhaps justice is in the future for victims and their loved ones.

Legal Entertainment has reached out to representation for comment, and will update this story as necessary.

John J. Perlstein is a personal injury and wrongful death lawyer in Los Angeles, Orange County, and the surrounding areas. He has been practicing law for over 25 years, litigating countless injury claims, including those involving complex car accidents, motorcycle accidents, trips and falls, catastrophic injuries, premises liability, and wrongful death.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

Nashville Legal Experts Provide Guidance on Pursuing Wrongful Death Claims in Tennessee

Nashville Legal Experts Provide Guidance on Pursuing Wrongful Death Claims in Tennessee.

Nashville, TN - August 30, 2024 —

In the state of Tennessee, wrongful death claims arise when a person’s death is caused by the wrongful act, negligence, or fault of another party. Understanding the complexities of filing a wrongful death claim is essential for families seeking justice for their loved ones. Nashville-based legal experts are offering detailed guidance on how to navigate this legal process effectively.

Families grappling with the loss of a loved one due to negligence or intentional harm face a challenging journey towards seeking justice and compensation. In Tennessee, pursuing a wrongful death claim requires careful navigation through legal complexities, and nashville wrongful death lawyer are equipped to provide essential guidance during this process.

Wrongful death claims in Tennessee are governed by specific statutes that outline who is eligible to file a claim and the types of damages that may be recovered. The laws in Tennessee allow the surviving spouse, children, or parents of the deceased to pursue a claim. If no immediate family members exist, the personal representative of the deceased’s estate may bring forth a claim.

The primary purpose of a wrongful death claim is to provide financial compensation to the surviving family members for their loss. This compensation can cover a range of damages, including medical expenses incurred prior to death, funeral and burial costs, loss of the deceased’s income and benefits, and the pain and suffering experienced by the deceased prior to death. In some cases, punitive damages may also be awarded to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar conduct in the future.

The process of filing a wrongful death claim in Tennessee involves several critical steps. Initially, an investigation must be conducted to gather evidence supporting the claim. This includes collecting medical records, witness statements, and any other relevant documentation. Legal experts in Nashville emphasize the importance of acting swiftly, as Tennessee has a statute of limitations for wrongful death claims. This statute typically requires a claim to be filed within one year from the date of death.

Once the investigation is complete, a complaint is filed with the appropriate court. This legal document outlines the facts of the case, identifies the responsible parties, and details the damages being sought. After the complaint is filed, the legal process moves forward with the discovery phase, where both parties exchange information and gather evidence to support their positions. Negotiations for a settlement may occur at any point during this process. However, if a fair settlement cannot be reached, the case may proceed to trial.

Pursuing a wrongful death claim in Tennessee presents several challenges. One of the most significant challenges is proving that the defendant’s actions directly caused the death of the deceased. This often requires expert testimony from medical professionals, accident reconstructionists, or other specialists who can establish a clear link between the defendant’s conduct and the death.

Additionally, calculating the appropriate amount of damages can be complex. Economic damages, such as medical expenses and lost wages, are often straightforward to quantify. However, non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering or loss of companionship, require careful consideration and may vary significantly depending on the circumstances of the case. Legal experts in Nashville stress the importance of thoroughly documenting all losses to ensure that the family receives fair compensation.

One significant factor in wrongful death claims is the ability to demonstrate negligence or fault. In cases involving nashville truck accident lawyers , for instance, the complexities increase due to the involvement of commercial vehicles and potential multiple liable parties. Nashville truck accident lawyers are experienced in handling such cases, where determining fault may involve analyzing driver behavior, vehicle maintenance records, and adherence to transportation regulations.

Another challenge is navigating the emotional aspects of a wrongful death claim. The loss of a loved one is an incredibly painful experience, and the legal process can be overwhelming for grieving families. Nashville attorneys emphasize the need for compassionate legal support during this difficult time, ensuring that families have the guidance they need to make informed decisions throughout the process.

Importance of Legal Representation

In Tennessee, legal representation is crucial when pursuing a wrongful death claim. Experienced attorneys in Nashville bring a wealth of knowledge to these cases, understanding the nuances of Tennessee’s wrongful death laws and the strategies required to build a strong case. Legal experts can handle all aspects of the claim, from the initial investigation to negotiations and trial, allowing families to focus on healing while the legal process unfolds.

Nashville attorneys also understand the importance of communication throughout the wrongful death claim process. Keeping families informed about the progress of the case and explaining the legal options available ensures that families can make decisions with confidence. Additionally, legal experts work diligently to protect the rights of the family, advocating for fair compensation and holding the responsible parties accountable for their actions.

The Role of Settlement Negotiations

Settlement negotiations play a critical role in many wrongful death claims in Tennessee. A settlement can provide a faster resolution to the case, allowing the family to avoid the stress and uncertainty of a trial. However, it is essential that any settlement offer is carefully evaluated to ensure that it adequately compensates the family for their losses.

Nashville legal experts bring extensive experience to the negotiation table, using their knowledge of similar cases and the potential outcomes of a trial to guide settlement discussions. If a fair settlement cannot be reached, the legal team is prepared to take the case to trial, where a jury will determine the outcome. The decision to accept a settlement or proceed to trial is ultimately made by the family, with the advice and support of their legal counsel.

Navigating the legal complexities of a wrongful death claim in Tennessee requires expertise, compassion, and a thorough understanding of the law. Nashville legal experts provide invaluable guidance to families during this challenging time, ensuring that their rights are protected and that justice is pursued on behalf of their loved ones. With the support of knowledgeable attorneys, families can navigate the legal process with confidence, knowing that their case is in capable hands.

Pursuing a wrongful death claim is not only about seeking financial compensation; it is also about holding those responsible accountable and ensuring that similar tragedies are prevented in the future. Through diligent legal representation, Nashville attorneys help families achieve these goals, providing a sense of closure and the opportunity to move forward.

Contact Info: Name: David Email: Send Email Organization: Nashville Law Firm Address: 416 E North St Level 2, Greenville, SC 29601, United States Phone: +1-864-679-7777 Website: https://www.nashvilletnlaw.com

Release ID: 89139507

Should you detect any errors, issues, or discrepancies with the content contained within this press release, or if you need assistance with a press release takedown, we kindly request that you inform us immediately by contacting [email protected] (it is important to note that this email is the authorized channel for such matters, sending multiple emails to multiple addresses does not necessarily help expedite your request). Our expert team will be available to promptly respond and take necessary steps within the next 8 hours to resolve any identified issues or guide you through the removal process. We value the trust placed in us by our readers and remain dedicated to providing accurate and reliable information.

Disney told a man he couldn't take it to court over his wife's death at one of its parks because he once had a Disney+ trial. Now it's backing down.

• A doctor died from a severe allergic reaction after eating at Disney Springs in Florida last year.
• Her widower sued, but Disney said he couldn't take it to court under the T&Cs of a Disney+ free trial.
• Disney has now reversed course and says it waived its right to arbitration due to the "unique circumstances."

Disney told a man whose wife died from an allergic reaction after eating at its Florida theme park that he couldn't take it to court under the terms of his Disney+ free trial and would have to go through arbitration instead. The entertainment giant has now reversed course and said the widower can proceed with the trial.

Kanokporn Tangsuan, a 42-year-old doctor in New York, died in October 2023 from anaphylaxis after eating at a restaurant at Disney Springs at Walt Disney World in Orlando, according to the lawsuit.

Tangsuan, who had a severe dairy and nut allergy, ordered a vegetable fritter, battered scallops, vegan shepherd's pie, and onion rings at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant. She was repeatedly reassured by the waiter that they would be allergen-free, the lawsuit says.

Jeffrey Piccolo, her husband, filed a lawsuit against Disney and Great Irish Pubs Florida, which operates the restaurant, in February.

Disney: Piccolo agreed to a binding arbitration clause in his Disney+ subscription

In April, Disney asked the court to dismiss the complaint, saying that it didn't control the restaurant and that the couple had "failed to take all reasonable measures and precautions necessary" to avoid the "damages alleged."

Disney said in later filings that when Piccolo created a Disney account for a Disney+ free trial in 2019, he had agreed to its Subscriber Agreement, which includes a binding arbitration clause that applies to "all disputes."

This includes "any related disputes involving The Walt Disney Company, its subsidiaries, or its affiliates," the terms say .

Piccolo agreed to the terms again when he logged into his Disney account to book tickets for Walt Disney World's Epcot park, Disney said.

Disney said in the lawsuit that Piccolo ticked a box saying that he agreed to the terms in both cases. "Whether Piccolo actually reviewed the Disney Terms is also immaterial," the company's lawyers wrote.

Piccolo's lawyers called Disney's argument "preposterous" in a filing in early August. According to Disney's defense, when Piccolo "signed himself up for a free trial of Disney+ back in 2019 or bought Epcot tickets in 2023, he somehow bound the non-existent Estate of Kanokporn Tangsuan (his wife, who was alive at both times) to an arbitration agreement buried within certain terms and conditions," Piccolo's lawyers wrote.

Related stories

Disney's defense was "based on the incredible argument that any person who signs up for a Disney+ account, even free trials that are not extended beyond the trial period, will have forever waived the right to a jury trial enjoyed by them and any future Estate to which they are associated, and will instead have agreed (on behalf of other survivors and the estate itself) to arbitrate any and all disputes against any and all Disney entities and affiliates, no matter how far removed from use of the Disney+ streaming service, including personal injury and wrongful death claims," Piccolo's lawyers wrote.

"As can be seen from the prior sentence, this argument borders on the surreal," they added.

Disney has since reversed course, saying that it has waived its right to arbitration.

"With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss," Josh D'Amaro, the chairman of Disney Experiences, told CNN .

"As such, we've decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court."

Neither Disney nor Piccolo's legal representatives immediately responded to requests for comment from Business Insider, made outside regular US working hours.

Watch: DeSantis vs. Disney: Who are the winners and losers?

• Main content

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Disney reverses wrongful death decision

Tinbete Ermyas

Katia Riddle

Jordan-Marie Smith

The Walt Disney Company has reversed its decision to toss a wrongful death suit over a Disney+ agreement.

Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Disneyland's Deadpool Takes A Jab At The Disney+ Wrongful Death Lawsuit Controversy

If you've been skim-reading the headlines lately, you may remember reading something about how signing up for a Disney+ account gives the Walt Disney Company the legal right to kill you. That might sound like a plot point straight out of "BoJack Horseman," but it does have some basis in truth, and Disney's new resident rascal Deadpool made a risqué joke about it while on the job at Disneyland Resort in Anaheim.

The story emerged after Dr. Kanokporn "Amy" Tangsuan died of an allergic reaction after eating at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Florida's Walt Disney World, despite being repeatedly assured by a waiter that her meal was allergen-free. When Dr. Tangsuan's husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, filed a $50,000 wrongful death lawsuit against Disney, court documents show that Disney filed a motion to send the case to arbitration instead. Among the documents cited was a Disney+ Subscriber Agreement that Mr. Piccolo had assented to in 2019 when signing up for a free trial of Disney+, which states that any disputes against Disney are "subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration."

Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't comment on the legal validity of this defense. However, I do know a fair bit about writing headlines, and Disney responding to a wrongful death lawsuit with "well, you should have read the Disney+ terms and conditions" is a headline writer's dream come true. A total PR disaster ensued and Disney hastily reversed course, withdrawing the motion to settle via arbitration. The company has framed this as an act of magnanimity, and therefore maintains the right to pull the "Disney+ Terms and Conditions" card for any future death disputes.

"With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach," Disney Experiences chairman Josh D'Amaro said in a statement to CNN . "As such, we've decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court."

Disney's Deadpool clowns the Disney+ terms and conditions

The Merc with a Mouth doesn't appear to be pulling his punches in "Deadpool & Wolverine." He openly acknowledges the fact that he and Wolverine are joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe at "a bit of a low point," and at one point pleads with Marvel Studios to quit trying to make the multiverse thing work. Now it seems that Disneyland Resort Anaheim's Deadpool has taken these jokes as a challenge and is aiming to one-up them.

TikTok user Kaitie shared a video of a comedy routine between the resort's Deadpool and Wolverine performers, in which Deadpool quips that "Cinderpool was late [to the big battle] because he had to read every single page in the terms and conditions when he signed up for Disney+." The audience responds with a ripple of slightly shocked laughter, and when Wolverine says, "I don't get it," Deadpool slyly replies, "They do."

This is definitely right on the edge of bad taste comedy , to the extent that it's kind of fascinating. On the one hand, the joke really doesn't fit with Disney's statement about taking "a sensitive approach" to the situation. In the unlikely scenario that this joke was approved by Disney higher-ups, it would mean the company is turning Dr. Tangsuan's death into entertainment fodder for paying customers, adding insult to fatal injury while the family's grief is still fresh.

Assuming the far more likely scenario that the Deadpool performer (or the writer who penned this sketch) simply tried to slip the gag in under the radar, there's already speculation that they'll be fired (or worse) before the week is out. However, the line is actually quite cleverly drafted to allow for plausible deniability; this Deadpool could simply claim that he was just making a classic joke about terms and conditions being too long for anyone to actually read. Alternatively, he could argue that he was staying in character as Disney's new resident court jester .

If both of those defenses fail, at least he'll always have the fallback option of selling used cars.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• Paralympic Games
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Defendant in Titan submersible wrongful death lawsuit files to move case to federal court

FILE - Debris from the Titan submersible, recovered from the ocean floor near the wreck of the Titanic, is unloaded from the ship Horizon Arctic at the Canadian Coast Guard pier in St. John’s, Newfoundland, June 28, 2023. (Paul Daly/The Canadian Press via AP, File)

FILE - Commander Paul-Henri Nargeolet laughs at Black Falcon Pier in Boston on Sept. 1, 1996. (AP Photo/Jim Rogash, File)

• Copy Link copied

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — One of the defendants in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from the implosion of an undersea submersible headed to the wreck of the Titanic is seeking to move the case from state to federal court.

Janicki Industries filed a petition on Aug. 12 to remove the case to U.S. District Court, according to records accessed Monday that were filed with the King County Superior Court Clerk’s Office in Washington state. The plaintiffs in the case have until the middle of next month to respond to the request.

The family of French explorer Paul-Henri Nargeolet, who died in the Titan submersible implosion in June 2023, filed the lawsuit against several companies in a Washington state court earlier this month. The lawsuit seeks more than $50 million and states the crew of the Titan experienced “terror and mental anguish” before the disaster, and it accuses sub operator OceanGate of gross negligence.

The lawsuit names Janicki Industries as a defendant for its role in the design, engineering and manufacturing of the submersible. The sub’s unconventional design, and that its creators did not submit to independent checks, emerged as areas of concern in the aftermath of the implosion, which killed all five people on board and captured attention around the world.

Representatives for Janicki Industries did not respond to numerous requests for comment. A representative for OceanGate, which suspended operations after the implosion and has not commented publicly on the lawsuit, said they also had no comment about the request to move the case. Other defendants named in the lawsuit did not respond to requests for comment.

The plaintiffs are not commenting on the request to move the case, said Matt Shaffer, an attorney for the Nargeolet family. The request doesn’t change the goal of the lawsuit, he said.

“The hope is that the families obtain more specific knowledge as to what happened, who was at fault,” Shaffer said. “And certainly they are seeking justice.”

Nargeolet was a veteran undersea explorer who had been to the Titanic site many times before the Titan implosion. The implosion also killed OceanGate CEO and cofounder Stockton Rush, who was operating the Titan, as well as British adventurer Hamish Harding and two members of a prominent Pakistani family, Shahzada Dawood and his son Suleman Dawood.

The Titan’s final dive came on June 18, 2023, and it lost contact with its support vessel about two hours later. The wreckage of the vessel was later found on the ocean floor less than 1,000 feet (305 meters) off the bow of the Titanic in the North Atlantic. The implosion is the subject of a Coast Guard investigation that is still ongoing nearly 15 months later.

The Nargeolet lawsuit states that “the Titan’s crew would have realized exactly what was happening” at the time of the submersible’s failure. It states that “they would have continued to descend, in full knowledge of the vessel’s irreversible failures, experiencing terror and mental anguish prior to the Titan ultimately imploding.”

A Coast Guard public hearing about the submersible implosion is slated to begin next month. Coast Guard officials have said the hearing will focus on subjects such as regulatory compliance and mechanical and structural systems relating to the submersible.

The Titan had not been registered with the U.S. or international agencies that regulate safety. It also wasn’t classified by a maritime industry group that sets standards for features such as hull construction.

Attorneys for Nargeolet have said the explorer would not have participated in the Titan expedition if OceanGate had been more transparent. Their lawsuit describes the explorer’s death as “tragic, but eminently preventable.”