For society, the struggle between their aspirations to be moral and just and the greater, more abstract moral cost they pay every time they condone a state-sanctioned murder is a never ending battle. No one wishes to be the person who “heard her cries for help but did nothing while an attacker stabbed her to death”, no one wants that on their conscience (Bruck 581). In order to compensate for this occurrence, they try to reconcile themselves by exerting the harshest punishment known upon the perpetrator while distancing themselves from the person. With this first instinct of “an eye for an eye”, capital punishment made its debut with the thought “the advantages, moral or material, outweigh [the cost]” (DMW, VDH 2). In the film, Prejean battles this preconception with the claim that the moral cost society pays far outweighs any benefits it poses.
The Serial Killer Adnan Syed’s case was skewed against his innocence in the Hae Min Lee murder Case. The police and detectives came up with unreasonable reasons for Syed’s will to kill Lee, and they constantly backed up their theories with invalid testimonies of others. However, many of the theories against Adnan could be supported through phone records and alibis. There is one issue with the conviction of Syed. Syed repeats his innocence by saying, “I had no reason to kill her” (Koenig Episode 1).
My proposal and personal recommendation is to abolish the death penalty on a national level. I do not think that it benefits society as much as it harms individuals and causes unnecessarily excessive judicial costs. However, I still believe that the death penalty should remain in effect for some extraneous situations. The federal government should still be able to preform executions when it deems them necessary. Yet I believe that traditional murder sentencing’s should be free of
Organizations are taking action against the death penalty by researching, publishing, and exposing facts whenever officials want to abuse their power with the law. When the final sentence is being decided, the system they use to determine, is very flawed. The sentence is determined not by the gravity of the crime, but depending heavily on the person’s lawyer. Another thing that is used against the defendant, is race. As sad as using race to determine when someone else’s life is going to end sounds, officials really do that.
This chase’s purpose, at a basic level, is to catch Montag, as he is now a public criminal. The true purpose of this chase is deeper, it is designed to convince the populace that the police are doing their jobs by catching fugitives like Montag. However, the ending to the chase tells a different story. They catch and kill “Montag” using the hound, however, they do not kill “Montag.” The police actually kill an innocent man while telling the public that they actually kill Montag, to save face. The killing shows that this society is flawed and corrupt, proving them to be a dystopia.
In the essay “The Death Penalty Is a Step Back” the author, Coretta Scott King expresses her feelings about capital punishment and states reasons to back up her argument that the death penalty is both a racist and immoral practice. King believes that capital punishment is immoral and illegal, and that it by no means serves as a deterrent for other possible criminals. The author then further talks about how there have been numerous incidents where the mistakenly convicted is put down in the name of American justice. King then argues that by sentencing someone to death, one is assuming that the person convicted is not capable of rehabilitation. The
Should Death Penalty be abolished? Over decades people have been arguing about whether the death penalty should be abolished or not if death is morally right or cruel and unusual penalty. Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for crime. Is it right to see people dying even though it’s under the act of government punishment? The cost of the death penalty is ridiculous.
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. They will have to live with the mental fact that they took away another person's life, when it is not necessary.
Death Penalty, Constitutional or Not Imagine a family member of yours was unjustly framed with something he didn’t commit and he is sentenced to death penalty, how would you feel? Death sentence has been thrown back and forth with the argument that it is or it is not an acceptable way of punishing. Offenders are doing what they know best, breaking the law, but the government instead of fixing the problem by doing something better, the make it worse by taking another life from society, which can be considered a “crime”. The death penalty is currently being used by thirty-four out of the fifty in the United States. Death penalty often establishes the question, “Does the government have the right to take away someone’s life?” When death penalty claim another life, the people that get affected are the families of the ones being charged.
The state gives a person a gun and a badge, it instantly gives them a free pass to do as they please and the right to kill whom they deem a threat to public safety. Police officers are the citizens who take the oath to “serve and protect”, but quite ironically they pose a greater threat to society because of the fact that they are everywhere and they just seem to be able to get away with everything they do to a certain extent. Where is that line drawn? Who makes the decision if they crossed the line? Police should not have the mentality that they are immune to the court of law due to the fact mere fact that they are officers of the law.
Most mentally ill people who are convicted on capital charges should not be executed, for three such reasons. Firstly, the executions would violate equal protection of the laws in any jurisdiction in which execution of children and people with mental illness of any kind that psychologically cannot fully comprehend what they are committing is barred. Secondly, many death sentences imposed on people with mental illness violate due process more so because their mental illness is treated by the aggravating factor, either directly or to create a separate aggravating circumstance. Thirdly, many mentally ill offenders, who are sentenced to death, will be so impaired to what is fully going on at the time of execution that they can not emotionally understand the significance of their punishment. Thus, they cannot be executed under the eighth amendment; Regarding this, the latter conclusion is required even if they are cured through some sort of treatment.