Opponents of the death penalty often argue that judicial executions violate the condemned prisoner’s right to life, but has not the prisoner already forfeited their right to live when he/she decided to take the life of other? “Doing them harm creates a moral debt to them, that is, you owe them an increase in their well-being-as-wealth. Justice is when the moral books are balanced” (Winston). It was the initial act of the criminal that led him to this consequence. Right to life for humans should only be limited to those who have respect for the rights of others.
These little things bear less of a consequence than the judgement of life. No one should be careless enough to pass down the death sentence without hearing both sides of a case. Hammurabi had countless laws that ended in death, although this was a more common form of punishment it was still cruel and unjust. Laws 1, 3, 22, and 110 are other examples of crimes ending in death. A punishment of death should almost never be given unless you have taken someone 's life.
The death penalty also violates the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment states that every citizen has equal protection of the law. In most cases when a person commits a major crime they will get the same or close to the same sentence as someone that did the same thing but, in other cases the defendant will be judged by their skin color rather than the extent of their crime. That is why the death penalty violates the 14th amendment because when stuff like that happens and the defendant gets a death sentence there is no equal protection of the law. Lastly the death penalty
The three strikes law seems to assist with steering offenders away from committing further crimes because following the second conviction there may be a reminder of what will happen if the felon commits another criminal act his or her freedom will be taken away and will receive a prison sentence of a mandatory twenty-five years, or worst, a life sentence. The thought of serving a life sentence may be the reason that some change their lifestyle and stop committing crimes. Theirs also disadvantage to the law first it gives the potential risks of more crimes to being committed. Already convicted felons are given the chance to commit more crimes, even though this is not what the law was intended for but the opportunity is there and present. Civilians are being placed in greater risk of being targeted by the same offenders that rather continue to commit crimes.
Counterclaim 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 conclusion the idea that the death penalty should be abolished can be supported by many reasons that include extensive evidence.
Will you stand with us or against us? I do not support the death penalty for some couple of reasons. First I do not think that a human being should be able to judge a person on their crime, a person should be jailed as a punishment. If we as human decide whether a person lives or dies from a bad doing, then we are as guilty as them and are doing the same thing as them by killing them. So as a result, I in my opinion of this subject do not believe
This essay shows three aspects about thinking this controversial problem more rational. First and foremost, making the control over guns stricter could save many people’s lives through preventing parts of the suicides. Secondly, making the control over guns stricter may protect citizens’ lives by keeping them away from violence and some crimes. Last but not least, making the control over guns stricter might protect people from the risk of traumatic stress disorder. Adversely, there are some opposing views.
A judge may choose a life penalty instead of a death penalty in the hope of the criminal’s rehabilitation; while this goal is likely feasible for the committer of a lone, spontaneous crime, multiple premeditated offenses like those of serial criminals render any form of rehabilitation highly unlikely (Bradbury, "The Death Penalty Affirms the Sanctity of Life"). Therefore, serial criminals should be considered for death row. Another common objection to the death penalty is the chance that an innocent person may be sentenced to death and executed. Likewise, even if they are found innocent, the consequences of their time on death row would follow them throughout their lives. Walter McMillan suffered due to the perjury of witnesses, whom law enforcement coerced to provide false testimonies placing McMillan at the scene of a murder.
The topic is debated whether or not the Capital Punishment should be legal. The government is already involved in the lives of those who commit crimes, but the idea of it taking away someone’s life creates an uneasy thought. Some people believe that execution is wrong, inhumane and should be abolished while others believe that it projects positive impacts and
In most places, we believe that people are created equal, and therefore everyone should be treated equally. In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, people aren’t treated equally, where the more intelligent people are removed from society either by death or by prison. During the novel, Montag takes the life of someone who was threatening his property, life, and the life of someone else. He was justified in doing so as well, as most people would like to live and enjoy the different things that they own. Although it is unknown whether Beatty would actually kill Montag or Faber, Montag did end up killing him, and because it was out of defense of himself, his property, and someone else’s life and property, Montag is justified in his actions.
The process is needed to ensure that the innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even if those protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be complete eliminated. According to the reporter of working for alternative to the death penalty, in the article The High Cost of the Death Penalty, “If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole”, (1). Basically the reporter is stating that it will cost millions of dollars less and ensure that the public will be protected while trying to eliminating the risks of irreversible mistake with money when the money could be used on