Amnesty International Death Penalty Analysis

Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life… Time and time again we have witnessed the specter of mistakenly convicted people being put to death in the name of American criminal justice. However, it is not the intention of those who support capital punishment to kill those who are innocent. Even though it does not happen often, it still happens, but anything that has to do with humans there will be human errors that occur.

In In Cold Blood, the issue over the death penalty is prominent. Did Perry and Dick deserve to die? Should the severity of one’s crime determine one’s fate? Although Truman Capote writes the novel in a straightforward, “from a distance” way, he conveys, through his characters, theme, and plot development, that the death penalty is an issue that should be looked at from all sides and that the legal system itself is the real issue at hand, and that the death penalty is used as a means to suppress the distress and indignation of the citizens surrounding the case, instead of suppressing the victim himself.

Ayala chose not to seek the death penalty in the case regarding Markeeth Lloyd, due to her beliefs that the death penalty should not primarily be a deterrent to crime. Historically, it has been shown the death penalty has been imposed on the innocent way too often, exorbitant to taxpayers and lastly, it adversely affecting both families of murder victims and families of the accused. Additionally, it has been apparent that co-victims had improved physical and psychological health and greater satisfaction with the legal system in cases where perpetrators received life sentences, rather than death sentences as well. In knowing Markeeth Lloyd killed two individuals, had a long criminal history and was a threat to society, I believe he had demonstrated to be tried for the death penalty. Although this case was highly publicized and nearly two percent of murderers actually get the death penalty, this does not mean leaving hardened criminals without stringent punishment, and I have to disagree with D.A. Ayala's decision.

Additionally, these men may be let out on good behavior before their life sentence has been served and cause havoc in their cities once again. The death penalty can improve in its efficiency, its effectiveness and its certainty, but it is no doubt the best way to take care of the men and women who take the lives of innocent civilians in our country. The use of a life sentence simply does not do the job that the death penalty does. These men will have relationships in prison along with human interaction and other quality moments that they do not deserve. They should be taken off of this Earth just as they took their victims away from their families.

Execution is the act of carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person. This is carried out either by lethal injection or electrocution. Execution despite its barbaric nature has survived in many legal system and will continue to because it: reinforces a state of security of the general public, detters other individuals from committing such crimes, and enforces the concept of cause and effect within the legal system. In the text “The Penalty of Death” H.L. Mencken discusses not only why he supports executions, but also the ripple effects this action has on a society. While in a text entitled “Death Penalty,” Anna Quindlen discusses her objections to execution, because, as she states:”it consists of stooping to the level of the

(3). A philosophical belief about the capital punishment to observe the financial impracticality of the system because leaders should begin an investigation to determine the cost of the death penalty system. They could make a more informed choice about whether to keep it for sentences for life without

In the debate two candidate for death penalty were Robert Blecker and Kent Scheidegger. They argument by saying that Everyone wants a neighborhood that 's safe and communities that are strong. And in order to do that, we have to focus on the root causes of crime and punish the criminals proportional to their crime that is the Hammurabi code “An Eye for an eye”. Robert Blecker said, let the punishment fit the crime and The closest we come to serious punishment left in this society is the death penalty. He said he would reserve the death penalty for essentially terrorists, mass murderers, murderers of vulnerable victims, especially children, rapist murderers, contract killers, and torture killers.

Should death penalty be abolished? Justice Marshall stated that the death penalty was an ineffective punishment to determine the crimes and lead to execute innocent people. The death penalty did not deter crime and life imprisonment was a more effective deterrent. Convicted were rarely executed. Convicted murderer were usually model prisoner, and once released from prison they rarely returned

Will you stand with us or against us? I do not support the death penalty for some couple of reasons. First I do not think that a human being should be able to judge a person on their crime, a person should be jailed as a punishment. If we as human decide whether a person lives or dies from a bad doing, then we are as guilty as them and are doing the same thing as them by killing them. So as a result, I in my opinion of this subject do not believe

Haag (2007) writes that the death penalty is feared more than imprisonment because of its finality in that the person is excommunicated from the living. As such, it is a more effective and necessary form of punishment. Berns (1996) writes that the law must be “inspiring or commanding ‘profound respect or reverential fear’” for it to be effective in deterring criminals. However, people in favor of abolishing the death penalty can argue that despite its deterrence benefits, the life of the murderer is important. This means that the victim’s life is less important even though the offender is the one who has committed a crime.

To go into detail, I believe it is important that the federal government still have the ability to preform executions when it deems them necessary. The death penalty should only be abolished for cases involving murderers, or other crimes against civilians which would have perviously considered execution. Terrorism, crimes against the government, and other federal crimes should still have the ability to impose the death penalty on convicted terrorists and similar individuals. There are many reasons that the death penalty should be changed from todays standards. There are situations which I would deem it necessary, and situations in which I believe it to be excessive and unnecessary to the bettering of todays society.

While there are far more subjects to discuss regarding to this issue, I feel it necessary to state that I believe the death penalty should exist in a perfect society. I believe that certain crimes and certain situations warrant the punishment of death. However, the our society is not perfect. The justice system has failed to fairly use this punishment in far too many instances, and concludes that they cannot justly wield this

These conclusions are not supported by the available data. Justice Stevens has also argued that the risk of error in capital cases may be greater than in other cases because the facts are often so disturbing that the interest in making sure the crime does not go unpunished may overcome residual doubt concerning the identity of the offender. The same could be said of any criminal penalty, including life without parole; there is no proof that in this regard the death penalty is distinctive. He also states: I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty" is

“The penalty of death differs from all other forms of criminal punishment, not in degree but in kind. It is unique in its rejection of rehabilitation of the convict as a basic purpose of criminal justice. And it is unique, finally, in its absolute renunciation of all that is embodied in our concept of humanity.” (Potter

According to this article, to name a few, through history, it started from hangings in 1879, then electrocution by chair in 1890, until it reached lethal injection in 2008 where it deemed more humane. Several opinions were added in order to conduct an alternative method that would have a little to no chance in violating the 8th amendment. Officials can act unconstitutionally if they were to execute a condemned person in a procedure that intentionally makes it painful or in another way where they did not care whether it actually was. Due to this, this mostly continued to set an outer limit on how the death penalty can be carried out and since the court was unable to gather an actual majority to decipher the limit more