The death penalty has had a lot of controversy surrounding it for many, many years. Many people believe it should be outlawed and that and falls under cruel and unusual punishment, which would be against the Constitution. These people may also believe that the costs of using the death penalty outweigh the costs of imprisonment for life. However, many others support the use of the death penalty, under certain terms. Supporters believe that in many cases the death penalty is the right answer and that it may be better economically.
Those who are not in favor believe that the laws have led to an increase in unnecessary violence and wrongful deaths, along with causing other issues in the country. The Stand Your Ground laws have caused more harm than good. The laws have led to an increase in homicides in Stand Your Ground states, an increase in racial issues throughout the United States, and the broadness of the laws allow people to use them even in circumstances where there is not a threat of imminent danger. Many people in the United States believe that the Stand Your Ground laws are beneficially in the
When there are not enough laws concerning guns it can lead to leniency with firearms, too many laws can create problems with those firearms, and coming to a balanced set of laws will improve society in which firearms are concerned. There are pros and cons of gun control as well as many different policies concerning this around the world. Therefore being informed about these various issues will help citizens understand which would be the best policy. There are many citizens and politicians that are in favor of stricter gun control policies, pro-gun control supporters. Pro-gun control supporters are in favor of tighter gun laws because it is believed that there would be a decrease in gun violence, a decrease in accidental gun injury, a reduction in mass shootings, and a reduction in crime if guns were under tighter restrictions.
“The death penalty is not as effective as many people think.” The death penalty as a form of punishment for heavy crimes has been implemented worldwide for thousand years. Historically this punishment has always been associated with revenge and strength of power. Governments were using the death penalty to scare and suppress their enemies. The death penalty is still in “criminal law” of some of the countries and has a lot of opponents as well as I who think this punishment is not effective for the following reasons. First of all I believe this punishment violates the fundamental principles of human rights according to the United Nation’s Universal Declaration which says everyone has the right to life, liberty and security no matter what is their status, but unfortunately there is no prohibition against the death penalty in international law.
What if they raped someone and recieved the death penalty? Does the punishment fit the crime? Capital punishment is quite controversial. Many argue against it saying this form of punishment is unconstitutional. However, those convicted are given a reasonable punishment and opportunities to have their cases reassessed if need be.
The crimes that obtain the death penalty mostly consist of murder which include murder during a kidnapping, murder for hire, drug-related drive by shooting, and genocide. However, the crimes can also consist of other capital offenses, such as espionage, treason, and death resulting from aircraft hijacking. The United States of America is still practicing the death penalty, but not without controversy such as its soaring price, its decrease of use, and its Constitutional right. The cost of using the death penalty is excruciatingly immense and is continuing to surge. In his testimony to the Nebraska Legislature, Dieter states, “ In 1988, the Sacramento Bee found that the death penalty cost California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary expenses of the justice system, of which $78 million was incurred at the trial level.
Rape, murder, corruption. Those are crimes that need serious and effective punishments, that is why death penalty is the best option, not it is only effective but also deterrent. People will think twice to kill knowing that they could get killed too. Regrettably rate crimes are constantly growing and most governments can 't handle the situation. Except for the ones that have successively applied death sentence.
It has given more of a story to show and probably has changed many people’s mind about it. The moral capability of it is extremely important and I understand that but if you brutally murder two kids why would you only be held in prison for life. I think that if there is a death row case it should be someone with a good lawyer, not someone with no experience and will lose the case. They deserve a higher court system rather than a small town court. They deserve a judge case because we went over the jury bias of people and how white males are preferred over black females.
Today in the United States, police officers are held to the highest regards when it comes to serving the community; however, the policies for Unlawful Force as it refers to excessive or deadly force used by an officer needs to be changed; more too often, the media is reporting that police officers have shot and killed an unarmed suspect, subsequently, the penalty for many officers have resulted in a not guilty verdict. There is a massive outpour from communities across every state, demanding the revamping of unlawful force polices, that would hold police officers accountable for their actions if found guilty of murder, their crimes should hold no lesser penalty than other citizens within the United Sates. Currently, it appears that the policies
Many pro-gun supporters say that banning guns will both “create another potentially large source of organized criminal revenue, as a black market for guns will sure develop”, and “take away yet another piece of our liberty, which is one more step to socialism and totalitarianism” (Messerli). Supporters also say that reasonable gun control and gun safety education can be more enforced, so large-scale weapon bans are not necessary. Law abiding citizens who own guns are able to protect themselves against government tyranny, if issues were ever to arise. Lastly, many supporters of guns state that an attempt to ban guns is a violation of our Second Amendment
Informed policy needs to be created so the appropriate steps can be made to move from our current system of mass incarceration to a system that effectively rehabilitees offenders which results in lower crime rates. After all our criminal justice system was not established solely to incapacitate offenders, it should also aid in reducing recidivism. Rehabilitation, alternative sentencing, and mental health all used to be crucial components of the criminal justice system. Then our society saw a massive decrease in mental health facilities as well as a perceived increase in crime. Crime was perceived to have increased due to politicians and the federal government preying on society’s fear of crime to further their political campaigns and agendas.
So many question still remain on how effective both deterrence really are. General and Specific deterrence have good and bad effects on citizens. It prevents crime and some cases and fuels the rage in some. General deterrence focuses on preventing the crime before it happens. The thought of spending life in prison for committing a murder is very scary to me.