It is, in simplest terms, a way to torture someone and anyone who cares about them. A normal prison sentence can be just as harming to a person, and, depending on the conditions, may even be worse. A common misconception is that the death penalty will lower crime rates, but it is quite the opposite. From the author of “Facts about Deterrence and the Death Penalty” came, “ Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide.” There is no way to tell whether or not abolishing the Death Penalty will affect the way a killer might think; If it will somehow prevent them from committing crimes, but one thing we know for sure, is that Capital Punishment does not reduce crime. The same author wrote “The murder rate in states that do not have the death penalty is consistently lower than in states with the death penalty.” If some states in the United States have abolished it, and had promising results, the whole country should.
Walter McMillan suffered due to the perjury of witnesses, whom law enforcement coerced to provide false testimonies placing McMillan at the scene of a murder. Similar situations could be prevented by only placing a person on death row if there exists irrefutable, incriminating evidence, such as DNA evidence or camera footage. The use of DNA analysis in modern day death penalty cases has almost nullified the chance that an innocent person is put on death row, as such evidence or the lack thereof guards an innocent defendant against perjury (Bradbury, "The Death Penalty Affirms the Sanctity of Life"). The tragic story of McMillan also indicates the biased perception of the local courts that condemned him; he had already been framed as a vicious murderer by the media and, at that time, was predisposed to a conviction of capital punishment simply by being a black man in Alabama. However, today’s review of capital punishment cases by both state and federal courts makes such a bias highly unlikely.
Opponents of the death penalty often argue that judicial executions violate the condemned prisoner’s right to life, but has not the prisoner already forfeited their right to live when he/she decided to take the life of other? “Doing them harm creates a moral debt to them, that is, you owe them an increase in their well-being-as-wealth. Justice is when the moral books are balanced” (Winston). It was the initial act of the criminal that led him to this consequence. Right to life for humans should only be limited to those who have respect for the rights of others.
A recent example of this is Richard Glossip a man who was sentenced to death based on a corrupt statement with no other evidence to prove him guilty (5). Is this something you think should be happening in 2015? A society where normal people are killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or maybe they can not afford good legal support so they get the death penalty compared to someone who may be able to afford a good lawyer and only get life. The fact of how rich you are to determine whether you live or die is not right, you must agree.
Surely the scale of punishment with proportionality would be overgrown if there were subsections for each type of individual. After clearly showing the problems with the arguments for the death penalty and the abstractness of the arguments against it, the author still gives no answers. Lex talionis could be the wrong way of doing things and the principle of proportionality simply says to punish proportionally to the
We need to fight for a better way because I feel like this process is hurting more than it is helping and until we stop this crazy idea of “justice” we can't have easier way to take away these bad people. Works Cited 1. Ballard, Scotty. "Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?." Jet, vol.
Counterclaim Although the death penalty may bring some closure to families of the victims and even the victims themselves it still should be abolished because the negatives outweigh the positives. People could be murdered by the state even if they are innocent. They are taking away any chance these people have at a normal life even though it's a life that they deserve and did nothing to have it taken away. 6. Conclusion In conclusion the idea that the death penalty should be abolished can be supported by many reasons that include extensive evidence.
The Death Penalty The death penalty has been, and still is, one of the most discussed topics in the United States. Its opponents argue it to be an unnecessary and violent punishment because it seems no less barbaric than the crime, as well as it is sometimes not believed to serve its purpose as a deterrent. However, there is a fundamental difference between the loss of an innocent life and the execution of a criminal in accordance with the law. Death penalty might not be the most ideal solution, but abolishing it would put in danger the lives of many innocent and law-abiding citizens. Not only has the death penalty proven to be constitutional, cost effective, ethically correct deterrent of future murders, but it also is a punishment that fits
The plea bargain is a major problem facing courts today because innocent people are ending up behind bars. It is the defendants right to be able to plea bargain, but it is not always in their best interest to do so. Many defendants feel forced to plea bargain because they either feel as though their case has no chance against a jury or the public defender has little time to spend on their case. The defendant 's plea bargain to receive a lesser sentence, even if they are innocent. The other aspect of plea bargaining that poses a problem is guilty defendants receive a lesser sentence for the crime they committed.
The cost of the death penalty is ridiculous. Mainly the death penalty is against colored. The cost of the death penalty is far more expensive than the criminals that are in jail for life. Death of innocent people is caused by the death penalty, the government has mistakenly killed several people because they didn’t find enough evidence to prove innocent but after the death of the victim the government notice they had killed wrong, could you bring the dead back? Do people really deserve to die?
The solution, some might suggest, to minimize racial discrepancies in capital sentencing is to eliminate the ability of prosecutors to disqualify anyone with qualms about capital punishment from the jury pool. Jury selection in capital cases often takes weeks, if not months, as the “death qualified” jurors are isolated by the State. Numerous studies have shown that those who survive the death qualification process are inherently biased towards conviction. People who have no qualms about the death penalty favor the State. They would be more likely to convict in a jay-walking