I myself find that the facts supporting to abolish the death penalty outweigh any reason to continue to uphold it. With a broken judicial system leading to death row. It is littered with racial and economic hardships inadequacies and flaws innocent people are being sentenced to death court systems bottlenecked with motions and procedures that only prolong the impending doom. Many People argue that the worst of the worst of the worst should be put to death and that there is no reason to hold out with hopes that they will change. Other argue that the we must keep the death penalty for a deterrent.
If you put the death penalty in play criminals will more than likely think twice before doing a crime because they know at the end of the day they will have to pay for there actions. Therefore death and crime rates will go down. The death penalty is essntial to protect our towns and loved ones lifes from the dangers of other people. The
In this case the opponents are the persons who would like to pack up the death penalty and dump it on the side of the road along with the rest of the misfits. They believe it is the most inhumane way to do things and we would be no better than a killer ourselves. “My objection to the death penalty is based on the idea that this is a democracy, and in a democracy the government is me, and if the government kills somebody then I'm killing somebody,” as stated by Steve Earle [Goodman]. Though in some sense this may be true, we are killing them in a much more humane way than they must have killed their terrified victims. As I earlier stated they are given opportunities their prey did not sustain.
States that do not use Capital Punishment usually have a lower murder rate than states that do. The South, where 80 percent of all executions take place, has a higher murder rate than the North. People wouldn't want to go to prison where anything can happen. The inmates at prison hate it because they basically have no life in prison. The death penalty makes society more dangerous by further increasing violence through the brutalization effect.
Luis Garavito, the world’s most prolific serial killer, is known for killing the most victims in the world. Garavito raped and murdered over one hundred and forty children in Columbia (Heyden). Since Columbia does not enforce the death penalty, he was sentenced to one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three years in prison. The Colombian law states that a criminal can only be imprisoned for up to forty years, and since he helped law enforcement discover a few bodies he was re-sentenced to twenty-four years in prison (Heyden). Reasons such as these exemplify the need for the death penalty and why it is beneficial in America.
¨We reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers.” I can see why the Supreme Court doesn 't want these people in prison, because they might kill somebody in prison, or if they get bailed out they wouldn 't learn their lesson and do what they were doing AGAIN. ¨We have the responsibility to punish those who deserve it, but only to the degree they deserve it.¨ I can also see why they think people deserve it for their horrible actions, they believe that since they did some outrageous murder, or a really bad crime they deserve to die. ¨"Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, one thing most people will never know is the pain experienced when a family member, or in my case, family members are brutally tortured and murdered.¨ This is saying that families go through a lot when a murderer kills one of their loved ones, and the family wants that person executed. Personally, the death penalty in my eyes can help families feel like they 've got justice, and make them feel like they did something for the loved one that was
Dr. Rachels on the other hand believes that letting them die can be as morally worse as killing them. He explains this through the use of an example known as the Smith and Jones case. In this scenario Smith and Jones want to receive an inheritance so they both set out to drown their cousin. Smith ends up drowning his cousin while Jones goes to drown his cousin but notices his cousin is already drowning in the tub so he decides to let him die. Both men had the same motive and willingness to kill the child, but the only difference was one killed while the other let them die.
When victims are being killed or injured, many of the families would want to make sure the criminal would attempt another crime. On the night of August 31, Kermit Alexander’s “...mother, sister and two nephews were cold-heartedly shot to death” (Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments). Putting an individual on this penalty would result in the person not harming anybody else, and gives the victim’s family a closure knowing the killer is gone. Additionally, a perspective on why the death penalty should not be eradicated is because of its deterrence. David Muhlhausen, a researcher says that “between executions and reduced murder rates...
Macbeth could’ve saved himself if he did not kill Banquo and Macduff’s family. Killing Duncan was the right decision, however killing Banquo was unnecessary and killing Macduff’s family was cruel therefore leading to Macduff completely hating Macbeth. This hatred leads Macduff to kill Macbeth. Overall, Macbeth could have totally avoided this conflict if he was not such a power-hungry tyrant and could have lived a peaceful life if he just allowed for fate to continue its
When a murder is committed there is not taking it back and the same goes for when an execution happens. Both cases result in the loss of human life that can’t be revived. 4) Ernest van den Haag: The death penalty in a way lets the murderer know that, what they did was deemed wrong by the community of their peers and can’t live for it(pg.235). The death penalty is a punishment that the community feels qualifies as life for a life and is justified. 5) Ernest van den Haag: Penal sanctions deemed useful long term because they form necessary consequences that help to control crime (pg.233).
Forty years have gone by and I think it’s finally time we acknowledge the inconvenient truth; Capital punishment is not a fair means of punishment and disproportionately affects minorities. In the landmark Supreme Court case McCleskey v. Kemp, a study conducted by David Baldus, a late Iowa Law Professor, concluded that black defendants indicted for murder were convicted nearly twice as much as white defendants and black defendants who killed white people received the death penalty four times more often than black defendants who killed other black people. This argument was a highlight of the case, but did not stop the Supreme Court from ignoring the statistics regarding racial bias in capital punishment cases. A vote of 5-4 ruled that tendencies