I am against the United States government using torture as a tool to get information from people of our own and other countries. The way we use torture is very hypocritical we think it 's ok for if we use it for people that don 't live in or country but if it is someone from our own then it isn 't ok to do. We have used torture for many generations before us but we can find a better way to help our state 's. Most of the people that the government take end up dying before we can get any answers from them and if we do get information we have to kill them anyway. People think because there are people that come from some of our enemy countries it makes them bad aswell, so we should harm them which makes no sense in doing if they are not a part of it.
Death Penalty, Constitutional or Not Imagine a family member of yours was unjustly framed with something he didn’t commit and he is sentenced to death penalty, how would you feel? Death sentence has been thrown back and forth with the argument that it is or it is not an acceptable way of punishing. Offenders are doing what they know best, breaking the law, but the government instead of fixing the problem by doing something better, the make it worse by taking another life from society, which can be considered a “crime”. The death penalty is currently being used by thirty-four out of the fifty in the United States. Death penalty often establishes the question, “Does the government have the right to take away someone’s life?” When death penalty claim another life, the people that get affected are the families of the ones being charged.
Daniel Frank was the first person to be legally executed, he was sentenced to death for theft. (Michael Par. 7). Being executed for theft really was extreme, and the government later made the execution method to be used for more grave crimes. Many states years after decided to abolish capital punishment, and eventually legalized it again.
What might have been a superior consummation for Osama Bin Laden, the bullet that slaughtered him right away, or an existence of embarrassment in an American jail ? On the other hand, there is an argument that death penalty is necessary for the families of victims to move on properly. The families of the victims feel it is hard to live a normal life when they know that the murderer who killed their family’s member is still alive. Regardless of the possibility that the criminal is set in the most secure office conceivable, fear still around the family 's victims. While this dread might be silly, that doesn 't make it any less
Crimes such as manslaughter, serial rape, and treason have the potential to warrant the death penalty. Without a consequence to keep the sick side of society at bay, the government has essentially “given [them] a license to kill” (Koch). The death penalty poses a severe and permanent punishment for the aforementioned inhumane crimes of the more black-hearted citizens. This brings out fear in the hearts of these criminals, for they value their own life and also offers an incentive to not commit these
The following charges are not to be taken lightly as the actions of these figures lead to the subsequent death of millions. Clearly, justice had to be served to these criminals as ignoring their actions would be similar to neglecting that these millions did not die. In addition, after the mass casualties that ensued in World War II, justice could only be morally achieved in a court of law rather than senseless killing. The severity of their sentences weighed on how many charges they were guilty of. After the span of 9 months and 216 trials, a consensus was reached.
For instance, “Hitler committed suicide in his Berlin bunker on April 30th, 1945” (Axelrod 2). Adolf Hitler was a Nazi politician, and some believe he alone is to be blamed for the Holocaust, even though the Nuremberg Trials proved many others were guilty as well. When millions of people are killed, and one person that helped gets away, it is hard to be content. In addition to Hitler, “Goring was sentenced to death by hanging but two hours before his execution the “last renaissance man” committed suicide, taking a cyanide capsule he had managed to smuggle into the cell” (Catherwood and Horvitz 3). He had been tried and sentenced to death at Nuremberg, but instead of taking his punishment he rebelled.
Capital punishment, or better known as the death penalty, is defined as the legal authorization to kill someone as punishment for a crime. This form of penalty has been present for a long period of time, dating back its origins to the 18th century BC under the Code of King Hammurabi in ancient Mesopotamia. Along its history, murder as a form of chastisement is a noticeable characteristic in ancient cultures. It was implemented in the Hittite Code, Draconian Code of Athens, Roman Law of Twelve-tablets, Mosaic Law, etc. and all presented violent and cruel forms of execution.
Is Death Penalty Worth It? Well, in the past certain decades the all government of world realize that the crimes are increasing and the criminals. So they decide to make a new law which is the death penalty. The death penalty is law that the government created it to kill the criminals. The death penalty is a result for the criminals because they already did a lot of problems such as killing, stealing and raping.There are also many ways how to do the death penalty and depends on the crime, for example in Saudi Arabia, the prostitute who cheats on her husband killed by stoning.
The death penalty should be illegal in every state because it puts innocent people at risk, does not have any effect on crime rates, and life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty. The death penalty has been and is still used for 410 years since it has been introduced by the Europeans that migrated to America in its early stages. Over that timeline, the crime rates in the states that have the death penalty legal don't affect the crime rates. “The first question included in the 2008 questionnaire is also regularly asked in Gallup Polls.