Thinking about how disordered this world is, death penalty is a good solution to solve crimes related to murder and sexual offence, which are soiling this world. If it is such a good solution, why not used it earlier? Death penalty has been a controversy, because of the fact that it violates criminals’ rights. However, if we think about it backwards, they cannot judge that it violates human rights; it is them who first violated innocent people’s rights. Besides, there are other reasons to support my idea, and furthermore persuade you.
I do not see how just punishing capital crimes is compatible with showing mercy. If Bradley Wilson’s arguments were true people would be speeding and committing other misdemeanors with no punishment. The death penalty is set in place as a deterrent. The average citizen is not going to commit a murder if they know their life will in turn be taken. According
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
There are a number of practical arguments made for the death penalty. Because the death penalty is such a powerful construct, many argue that it decreases crime rates through deterrence. While many believe that the death penalty is more of a deterrent than a lengthy prison sentence, the very concept of ‘deterrence’ is argued by many as inapplicable to criminal psychology, especially if mental illness is involved. Criminals rarely think about the consequences of their actions and this is especially true with crimes of passion. By killing felons, the death penalty removes the burden of housing them within the penitentiary system.
However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty. In fact, this argument is supported by the many cases of malicious prosecutions and mistaken identities. The differences The due process model is pegged on the belief that it would be better if a criminal found innocent goes free rather than have one innocent person in jail. On the other hand, the crime control model argues that it is better to have a innocent person detained, questioned, tried and found innocent then let free than have a society full of criminals roaming
By his past action the criminal has shown himself to be wicked and dangerous. Anybody deprived enough to murder or assault one is probably going to act in socially harmful ways once more. The only way to keep a person from going to murder or assault later on is to execute him. Detainment is a far less effective method for protecting society from such dangerous criminals. Most detainees are freed after a period frequently become most risky than when they entered jail by parole, pardon or the expiration of their sentences.
Rather than being sentenced to the death penalty, more criminals should be sent to reformatories because reformatories build criminals up instead of tearing them down, capital punishment is strongly opposed by the religion and values of many people, and the process of applying the death penalty is often racist and contains several fatal mistakes. First, more criminals should be sent to reformatories instead of being executed because reformatories help criminals become better people. Reformatories can keep criminals from doing more crimes when their sentence is over and can turn their life around by keeping them positive. For example, Dwayne Betts’s description of Austin Reed, the author of a book comparing prison and slavery, explains how powerful prison is and how it can affect the rest of a prisoner’s life. Austin Reed was held in the first juvenile reformatory in the United States, the House of Refuge, wrote a book after being released from prison (Dwayne Betts, 2016).
I think that the Retentionists argument is the most persuasive. Retentionists are in favor of keeping the death penalty. For example, Figure 12-5 references deterrence and that with the implementation of the death penalty, offenders will not commit crimes. Death is the ultimate punishment and a concept that most people fear. Imposing this as a penalty is the maximum price for your crime.
To begin with one of the arguments against the death penalty system is that it puts innocent lives at risk. This occurs where wrongfully accused or innocent- presumed guilty individuals are sentenced to death row. The existing stress on quicker implementations, less resources for the accused, and an increase in the number of death cases mean that the execution of the not-guilty people is unavoidable. Courts are allowing executions to occur even when not sure about the defendant 's guilt.This majorly occurs to the less privileged individuals who cannot stand up for their rights or the oppressed who cannot do anything about the position they find themselves in. The disappointing thing about this ordeal, conferring to those who are conflicting,
Punishment must be specific to the crime. A murderer and a thief cannot receive the same sentence. A murder is more of an extreme offense than that of a theft, so the former should suffer more for their crime than that of the latter. Punishment also depends on how guilty the person is for the crime they have committed. An accomplice should be given a sentence but the mastermind who lead the crime should be punished more and should in turn suffer more for the crime they committed.
The proposal of issuing the death penalty in the face of hate crimes and incidents is steadily gaining popularity as well as harsher criticism against the overall humanity of capital punishment. Although some people believe it to reduce the amount of those looking to commit these felonies from the streets, those convicted of federal hate crimes should not be put to death because
I feel that the amount of money used for the death penalty could be used for better things. I also feel that it isn’t right to kill people for certain things, especially when it isn’t always 100% proven. Another reason why I don’t think it’ right is because the death penalty can prolong suffering for victims’ families (The United States should abolish Capital Punishment, 2012). The death penalty is way more expensive than life in prison because the constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. They do this to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they didn’t do.