In the film, Prejean battles this preconception with the claim that the moral cost society pays far outweighs any benefits it poses. She and Hilton Barber, Poncelet’s lawyer, initiate with the goal of making Poncelet’s humanity obvious to the court, employing the logic “it’s easy to kill a monster, but it’s harder to kill a human being” (DMW). Through the disillusion of Poncelet’s barbarity, a greater a toll is taken on the morality of those who condemn him therefore lessening the impact of their justifications. By showing the humanity of a convict, it removes any detachment formed through the belief that they are a monster and instead shows them a fellow human being- a . This in
It should be in every circumstances that their is in this world. If someone murdered someone just because they wanted too needs the death penalty. If they were put in jail for doing a bad crime them they should not be put in prison when they should get the death penalty. Jail’s get overcrowded when that becomes a problem. Capital punishments needs to be enforced because crimes are happening every day and people needs to be punished for the things they have done to other people.
The use of this figurative language made this argument more strong, clear, and understandable. My position on death penalty is that criminals who have committed deadly multiple homicides should be executed if there is enough evidence against them, making sure that no innocent people are punished. Yes, the the article had strengthen my position that innocent people should not be punished. Death penalty should be given only if the defendant murdered two or more people and it should not be a sentencing option when only eyewitness evidence
One must assume that such extreme practices like the death penalty has to be unnecessary. If the cold-blooded killing of thousands does not lower premeditated murder, there is really no point (because let 's face it, the saying “eye for an eye” is childish and socially unacceptable). This same conclusion was agreed upon in a recent poll by almost 90% of the world’s criminological societies (Facts About the Death Penalty). However in all honesty, the argument against the death penalty doesn’t just stop at its redundancy, but also its
We believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Once proven guilty, a person should receive punishment. This is the purpose of the justice system. The whole rule of double jeopardy defies this, not bringing justice to those who deserve it as it forbids for the accused to be tried again. It will be more beneficial to society as a whole if we abolish double jeopardy, to correct the mistakes of the justice system and essential for progression.
It is correct to punish a criminal but death penalty might be taken way too far. For example, killing a murder does not really make sense because an individual is slaughtering the murder because the murderer killed someone but the individual is also killing the murderer. What is different about that? So instead, the punishment that is commonly and usually given to the criminals such as murders, rapists,
The concept of ‘eye for an eye’ is very appealing to them. With capital punishment in place, it would provide comfort and closure to the family of the deceased. To fix the problems of not having the death penalty, we can amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to say “everyone has the right to life, except if a person takes the life of another” and “any person charged with murder will be subjected to capital punishment” so that people may once again feel that criminals get what they
It would be more effective if there was a larger chance of being detected, such as DNA collection at birth or more police. However, some arguments against capital punishment can be used to defend capital punishment. Putting someone on death row does cause psychological suffering, but those who commit horrendous murders deserve the pain. It makes sure justice is truly served; they killed, so they will be executed. That person being executed will bring closure and relief to the families of the
The final purpose of writing In Cold Blood is hypocrisy of conventionalism. Death penalty is for murderers. The remaining question is ‘It is not fine for someone to murder someone else while the government can kill a person as a punishment?’ Before Perry was executed, he said, “I do not believe in capital punishment, morally or legally” (340). Capote truly wanted to tell the readers how hypocritical the government is on punishing people who are legally
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?