The death penalty is a sentence that has no use. The process has become too slow over the years to the point where some people die before they get executed. Similar to the case of Max Soffar who may have been innocent, but died of cancer before he had the chance to fight for the freedom he may have deserved(Houston Press). This also shows that the death penalty has taken and ruined the lives of innocent people. A study shows that 4% of defendants sentenced to death penalty are innocent(The Guardian).The second reason is the high number of botched executions that happen in the USA. The only one without failed executions is the most intense one which is the firing squad. The second most successful execution is the electric chair with a fail …show more content…
They people who want the death penalty mainly say that they think that if they commit enough of a sin that God would understand the execution of that person IN the sense that the person is pure evil. The biggest problem is that the Bible says that all people should have their sins forgiven. Besides that it's shows that the real reason is so the person that can feel the pain that he victims family and friends feel. That shouldn't be a way we handle the pain we can’t remember what the person meant to use if we have the thought of death in our head. It almost cause a wall in our heads to not think straight because you are hurting more than helping the healing …show more content…
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. 103, no. 9, 24 Feb. 2003, p. 4. EBSCOhost, 2.Cushing, Renny and Adrianne Haslet-Davis. "Should the Death Penalty Live?." Time, vol. 185, no. 21, 08 June 3.Von Drehle, David. "Bungled Executions. Backlogged Courts. And Three More Reasons the Modern Death Penalty Is a Failed Experiment. (Cover Story)." Time, vol. 185, no. 21, 08 June 2015, p. 26. EBSCOhost, 4.Latson, Jennifer. "A Gruesome Historical Argument against the Death Penalty." Time.Com, 07 May 2015. EBSCOhost, 5.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent 6.https://new
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In his article “To Kill or Not to Kill”, Scott Turow tries to convince the audience advocating the capital-punishment system in Illinois to inspect its fairness and efficacy. He tackles this issue because he provides that the system is defective. Even though he goes back and forth from favoring the capital punishment issue to rejecting it, he clearly states his penalty opposition, supporting it with powerful examples, factual data, and a metaphor. To appear moral, credible, and knowledgeable, the author uses his scholarly tone, demonstrating his respectable position. He, as a lawyer and “one… members of a commission appointed by Governor”, had to present his position on the law during the reforms of the capital punishment system in Illinois.
Angela Davis, in her researched book, Are Prisons Obsolete? , analyzes the perception of our American prison systems. Davis’ purpose is to inform the reader about the American prison system and how it effects African- Americans and those of any other race, though blacks are the highest ranking number in the prison systems. She creates a blunt tone in order to easily convey her message without bias. Davis opens her researched book by addressing the idea of how abolishing the death sentence and the prison system itself, by claiming that even advocates for the death penalty find that they face challenges dealing with this issues also.
The death penalty sends a message to citizens; a message that says murder is not outrageous, unless the state is doing it as a sanction. This message helps to justify civilian killings of people believed to be deserving of death and may possibly even cause an uprise in vigilante style murders. This message also leaves an almost open air on what is wrong and provides no consistent moral ground for society to base their beliefs on. This does not mean that people will suddenly think murder is a favorable deed, but it may cause some to not realize how terrible it is. Joseph Summer wrote this in an article titled “Some Adverse Effects of the Death Penalty in History”: “…people learned 3 lessons from the government’s violent example: to use
The death penalty has been one of the most controversial debates in the United States. Some believe that an eye for an eye is an effective mean of punishment while others believe that such mean of punishment is not effective in modern society. Edward Koch believes the death penalty affirms the sanctity of life. In the article by Edward Koch, published in The New Republic, “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life,’ he utilizes the rhetorical devices of ethos, pathos and logos to justify his position for the death penalty towards the people opposing the death penalty.
Nathanson uses his essay, Does It Matter If the Death Penalty Is Arbitrarily Administered, to combat the notion that capital punishment is an effective outcome for criminals. It is my goal to propose that capital punishment in itself is as fair outcome, and point out that it should remain established as long as the ones sentencing criminals to this fate are held to higher, more fair standards. The driving force behind Nathanson’s argument against capital punishment is statistics. While no one comes forth to outright say that race plays an important role in the decision on who receives capital punishment, there are statistical findings put forth by Bowers and Pierce state that killers of whites have the highest chance of being executed
There are numerous ways to punish people who are a threat to society without executing them. No matter which way the death penalty is carried out, be it lethal injection, lethal gas, electrocution, hanging, or firing squad, the executioner is always implicated. Bryan Stevenson, a social justice activist, questions, “If it’s not right to torture someone for torture, abuse someone for abuse, rape someone for rape, then how can we think we can kill someone for killing?” (“Delaney” 1). Although executioners are permitted to kill, they are still killing another human being.
Support for capital punishment requires valuing retribution over rehabilitation. Those who favor capital punishment value highly the closure it provides to the families of the victims, and they believe that it deters would be murderers from killing. Retribution, closure and deterrence are the main reasons in favor of the death penalty. Opponents of capital punishment generally believe that it is hypocritical and immoral for the state
The University of Texas-Pan American Essay #2 Anna Salkinder LSPI July 27, 2015 The death penalty has been a major topic of debate in the United States as well as various parts of the world for numerous years. At this time, there are thirty-one states in which the death penalty is legal. Nineteen states have completely abolished it (“States with and without The Death Penalty”). Since its initial development back in the 1600’s, the death penalty has taken a different course in the way it is utilized. In its early days, the death penalty was greatly used and implemented for several offenses.
Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 87(1), 1. doi:10.2307/1143970 This article was written by Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L. Akers. They both consulted experts on criminology and criminal behaviour to evaluate the effectiveness of the Death Penalty.
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 the article “Abolish the Death Penalty” written by Bill Ryan the chairman of the Death Penalty Moratorium Project presents a solution. He thinks of the death penalty as “horribly expensive, ineffective, and inefficient” (Ryan). Ryan first starts off with a cause and effect moment then continuous to state the problem and his solution. He uses certain words, statistics, and questions to entreaty the readers in order to make them be understanding towards his explanation. Ryan’s structure first uses the cause and effect format, the cause would be having the death penalty and the effect are the results of having one.
The Death Penalty, loss of life due to previous crimes and actions, is believed by some to be extremely costly, inhumane, and cruel unlike some others whom believe it is just, right, and provides closure. The Death Penalty is not a quick and easy process. Most who get sentenced to deaths row wait years for their ultimate punishment of death. Some believe that it is not right to punish and kill a human for actions they have done because, they believe that the inmate should have another chance. Then others believe that it is right to punish someone for their actions especially if their actions involve killing another or multiple humans.
The most essential argument against the death penalty is that it is immoral. Regardless of how you look at it, the death penalty is slaughtering, and murder is never right! A further take a gander at the profound quality of the death penalty is required, on the grounds that albeit homicide is considered an ethical total, this is not generally the situation. This can be discussed through the virtue ethics theory. Virtue Ethics is the main non-defective theory of morals and was established by Aristotle.