As further rulings go on, it is eventually determined that with careful statues put in place that limits the abilities of the jury to rule capital punishment, the death penalty is officially said to not be unconstitutional. In our United States history, several rights of citizens have been interpreted differently by our judicial branch. During World War 1, two acts called the Sedition Act of 1918 and the Espionage Act of 1917 ruled that in times of national crisis, people can be prosecuted if they speak out against the government in a disloyal or threatening manner. This was seen as a violation of our freedom
2.0 Body 2.1 Argument 1: Death Penalty is Equal to Unfairness Death penalty, or known as Capital Punishment, is the most severe form of punishment of all legal sentence. However, is death penalty fair or just? Many people frequently debate over the fairness of the death penalty. According to the general agreement that not all severe cases or capital crimes are equally odious. Not all capital crimes deserve death.
First, the 7th Amendment ensures that citizens have to right to have a court. It also helps us because the common law or civil law court hear their case on the Federal level by a jury. It also helps us by providing a jury trial. For example, in court jury, the case protects and no one can change the factor otherwise it will be re-examined by another court of United States. As well as, a person can’t be a double jeopardy which means if someone commits a crime and the police didn’t find any evidence against them so they can free to go.
It is argued here that necessity is not accepted because no case has out-ruled Dudley & Stephens. However, when necessity is defined by the law it does not exclude murder from being able to claim necessity as a defence. This causes a problem because people will, from their own accord, decide whether the situation they are in justifies them claiming necessity as a defence after their act. If necessity is not accepted for a murder then it should be clearly stated in legislation. If the law is vague, then it allows for innocent people to be killed because the killer believed that necessity could be their defence.
However, in modern times, debates over the death penalty question the morality and ethics of putting to death one who has committed the same act. Tensions have boiled over to point that many call for the eradication of the death penalty itself. While abolitionists of the death penalty make strong arguments in their favor, the death penalty offers an incentive for citizens to follow the law, gives the state the power to execute justice, strengthens the value of human life, and provides closure to victim’s families. In the current state of the legal justice system, for someone to receive the death sentence means that they have committed a fairly heinous crime. Crimes such as manslaughter, serial rape, and treason have the potential to warrant the death penalty.
The Death penalty should be banned in the United States because Capital punishment is decreasing, why would people try to bring back a law that is about killing people? Also, taking someones life in the first place is just wrong, it is inhumane. Countries are taking advantage of the death penalty and are executing more people than they should. Although some think the death penalty makes people feel more comfortable and safe, the death penalty should be banned because killing people is not right. In order to bring about change, Americans need to understand the fact that killing people isn’t right.
Genocide is a deliberate killing, in which someone has planned to inflict serious harm to a specific minority group to get rid of the group’s existence. Genocide occurs between religious groups and/or minority racial groups within a country. It is crucial for cases involving genocide to be solved by the International Criminal Court, as their goal is to help provide long-term peace, and a stable world environment (International Criminal Court, Trying Individuals for Genocide). All in all, the International Criminal Court sets out to build a future world without violence and therefore only takes the most serious cases due to the amount of time one case takes to be
There is also an issue that come up frequently that it can never truly be known if the accused was guilty. Juries can be wrong and even though the death penalty requires an unequivocal verdict of guilty from the jury, I think that it could be possible that an innocent person could receive this penalty. This would a terrible miscarriage of justice as it would be taking away the right to life of a person who has done nothing wrong. Capital punishment is inherently wrong and the death penalty is taking it to an extreme. The right to life should be safeguarded and not removed for simply committing a
Prison and long sentences are punishment deserved for vile and corrupt acts deemed as unlawful, but determining a person’s death goes beyond unconstitutional, it emphasizes the concept of murder. The means of which these actions are carried include electrocution, gas inhalation, hanging, fire squad, etc. and each revolve around same primitive methods used centuries ago. We live in a time and age where we learn from the past and try to resolve into a better society, the separation from these old practices is a necessity to ensure the rights of everyone. The main collective goal of various countries is to abolish capital punishment, and the best way to shift the mentality of countries such as China or Iran that endorse it is to provide a better solution that does not contribute to the murder of individuals.
Revenge is never good in the eyes of God. The person who committed a crime or this “horrific crime” should pay a severe penalty but with uprightness. We cannot ever heal a wound with another wound. Imprisonment without the possibility of parole is an acceptable moral alternative for the most violent offenders on our society than penalizing them with