The death penalty should stay because we need it. If someone commits a crime they should take full responsibility for their actions. We do not need to keep them in jail. If they stayed in jail then they are still alive and someone innocent had to die because of their actions.
Murderers don’t always think about the range of punishments for murdering someone when they commit a crime. The law needs to inject fear in the minds of the criminals or murderers and discourage them from actually committing crime. We don’t just need something for the sake of it, we need something that actually deters crime and death penalty really isn’t one of them. Death penalty has been in practice for a very long time, even way back in history when people were not as developed as today and this itself shows that death penalty is not an effective deterrent for crime because the number of crimes and criminals in jails have increased immensely in today’s
Some people believe that a life sentence is worse than the death penalty, since it prevents the defendant from being considered a human being. Likewise Andy Martin says in his article, “In my imaginary trial of the future, the judge will not be “sentencing” at all. Or rather she will be uttering a sentence, but it is not a declarative assertion. There is no “the prisoner will be taken hence and thence conveyed etc.” It is an interrogative.
The ability to handle out the death penalty should be available to penalize the felons with the most serious of charges. The death penalty would bring peace to victims' family, bring about justice and further prevent future crimes. I would be the prosecutor that comes out with justice in my hands. About every minute you can count on
The practical use for this amendment was obviously needed because the punishments used back in those early times was much more aggressive and cruel. The death rate that came with the amount of these punishments was out of hand, and obviously now we don’t see any cruel punishments like they used to. There are still cruel punishments but the amendment made them more suppressed and reduced the number of them drastically. The Amendment was a safeguard for the American people.
Thomas Hobbes felt that if there were no contract then people would just act on instinct- rape, pillage etc- human beings in their natural state are inclined to war and distrust. There is a reason why we have the prison system, so that criminals pay for their actions and to protect the people. He states he has a wife that is expecting and two kids on the way. If he is a good and harmless guy as he states he is then it would never cross his mind to being involved in an
The idea that the offender will no longer be alive after sentenced to death provides peace for families of the victims. This assures the victim’s families that the killer will not strike again. Of course putting the murderer to death does not bring back their loved one, but it sure does provide a sense of justice. On the contrary, opponents of capital punishment believe that instead of sentencing offenders to death, they should not seek revenge and should instead decide to give them life in prison without the possibility of parole. However, for most people, their suffering is immeasurably increased knowing that the person who murdered their family member or friend –and who in many cases, inflicted unimaginable terror– is not only alive, but also being cared for (Prager).
It does more harm than good. One reason is that the death penalty is not allowing the offender to suffer. If the inmate lacks remorse and doesn 't care if he or she dies or not, how is killing them is teaching them that killing is wrong. In some cases, living a life with no freedom and isolation are worse than living at all. A few minutes of suffering is not the same as the suffering
The law may sometimes be “inconsiderate” but it keeps us in order. We may sometimes say it is harsh but it is because we are used to be “free” in a way that we do not follow rules and order. These things happen to us because we are not led by a good public official. Even the officials do not follow the law because they think they are an exemption which is not. We cannot remove the law.
The main points that have been covered dejecting the idea of capital punishment is that even though it has been practiced since long time in history now but there is no evidence that after it such form of crime would not have been committed again. Secondly, by all grounds it is the most inhumane form of punishment and instead of it to teach a lesson there could be numerous more ways to punish a criminal instead of just putting him to death. Lesson being learnt by him should be the most important thing instead of the lesson being learnt by the society. Other than this taxpayers start to spend a lot of amount on the dying person while another argument being that the government itself is committing the same crime that the criminal committed by murdering him and putting him to death hence sending out a pessimistic lesson to the society which will nurture a more negative society instead of churing out positive
When a person does wrong, there will always be some type of penalty, some of which are jail time depending on how bad the crime is. The crime will determine the time you will be put in jail, probation, and the death penalty. The death penalty would be considered the worst one because in the end, the criminal would be killed. In some states the
This consequently causes their peers to believe that these people should not be given the trust to vote on such widespread, controversial issues. Now, although the people with these concerns make a valid and alarming point they fail to understand that voting not only helps instill a sense of responsibility within prior-felons lives but it also helps with their rehabilitation process as well, targeting the psychological aspect of helping these men and women succeed. Christopher Uggen, professor of sociology and law at the university of Minnesota asserts in the article “Why should felons vote” that “ if those who argue that people with felony convictions shouldn 't be allowed to vote because they are untrustworthy in character . . . should we exclude admitted racists or, taking that argument even further, perhaps people who
We should make it only in rare cases and not sentence everybody we capture. “ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity.” Taking someone’s freedom is punishment enough because you have really giving them nothing else left. Sentencing them to death is the easy way out and makes us in the wrong for killing the criminal. These rare occasions would be if the criminal really has no empathy and a danger to himself and people in the prisons.
Hammurabi once said, “The first duty of government is to protect the powerless from the powerful.” The weaker a person is, the stronger need of government protection is needed. Hammurabi became king of Babylon in 1792 BCE, he conquered most of southern Mesopotamia and attempted to protect the weak and form law and order. He did this by writing 282 laws in stone and enforcing the laws to the entire kingdom. Hammurabi's code was unjust.
Cutting off a son’s hands if they strike their father - that may seem harsh to us nowadays, but in Hammurabi’s time, this rules united the whole entire empire and maintained order throughout the kingdom. Hammurabi was a powerful ruler of the kingdom of Babylon. He ruled for 42 years and ruled over most of Mesopotamia. Hammurabi became the ruler in 1792 BCE and made many great advancements including: a postal system, an irrigation maintenance system, and most importantly, a code of laws. Hammurabi had a strict code of laws that every citizen of Babylon had to follow.