Ron Fridell's Argument Against The Death Penalty

Once he is dead, he will not be at my table. He will not be in my head." That was a quote from a father who had lost his daughter from a serial killer. To conclude, society wants to feel safe. "I believe the death penalty should be used sparingly for heinous, forensically supported crimes.

Herrnstein and Wilson’s example of some cases of criminals, on the death penalty row, tried to reduce their sentences to life imprisonment may be atomistic to extend to the entire society or criminals to show that they fear the death penalty more than other humane punishment. Since this deterrence is not measurable, Bedau offered a moral principle that “unless there is a good reason for choosing a more rather than less severe punishment for a crime, the less severe penalty is to be preferred.” With that, choosing another humane punishment over the death penalty is more morally permissible. Pojman also conceded by stating that “it seems likely that the death penalty does not deter as much as it could due to its inconsistent and rare use” in reality. Even when the death penalty is carried out, it is shield away from the public’s eye; thus it does not produce any deterrence effects (Kramer,

In other words George never wanted Lennie to be treated poorly or be harmed, he wanted Lennie to be cared for, but since he killed Curley's wife they are no out looking for him. George can no longer protect Lennie, he rather end his life with happy feelings, than to suffer a terrible death. To conclude, killing is justifiable when it is a better of two outcomes. If dying is inevitable the less painful way is preferred. Even though, killing morality wrong, when asked, most people would want painless way out.

Finally, should George go to jail for killing Lennie? I believe that George helped Lennie by keeping him out of a home for the mental. Also i believe that George did the right thing because Curley was gonna kill him or even worse beat him to death. Although people believe George shouldn 't have killed him and he should 've let the police deal with him it would have most likely made things

Killing another seems very unjustifiable, which might be the case but when someone takes another 's life and sent to prison, death row or capital punishment is needed to put that person were they belong. People like that deserve to die because of their mistake of killing another and it deters other people to not kill others, showing them what would happen. In the case of Capital Punishment, Hunting for Sport, or George and Lennie, killing is a justifiable act. In the case of capital punishment killing is justified and needs to be done. For example, “Some crimes are so inherently evil they demand strict penalties up to and including death”(McClatchy).

“To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice.” -Desmond Tutu. This quote suggests why sentencing one to death after they have taken the life of another is not solving the problem. At most, it is helping to catalyze the grief and loathing towards those who have made mistakes. Although this idea may be impenetrable to those in mourning, it applies to both the most innocent and guilty individuals. For this reason, in John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, George should not be punished for killing Lennie because George being forced to decide to either kill his friend, watch other men kill him, or continue running away for the rest of his life is his punishment, he had Lennie's best interest in mind, and Lennie would keep making the same mistakes and identical events to this one would only continue to occur.

/ It seems as if he is being judged for not feeling sad over his mother’s death instead of being judged for killing the Arab man. They are judging his character rather than his case. The judge should focus on his crime rather than how he acts. It was unfair for the judge to order his execution for not having the same feelings about the world as everyone else

Often, a conviction of a certain crime will cost the defendant their career, certifications, and family, so allowing them to take a plea bargain will avoid losing what is important to them. The majority will learn from their mistake and never repeat the offense again. Some will not learn from their mistake or second chance and become repeat offenders. The repeat offenders will then sustain harsher punishment and a plea bargain is usually off of the table. Although I like ideas from both of the models, as a conservative and knowing how the court system works, I feel that the crime control model is the most effective.

Even before Bryan Stevenson started representing people on death row, he was opposed to capital punishment. To him, the act of killing someone who is found guilty of murder only to demonstrate that killing is wrong, does not make logical sense. He believes that the death penalty is a punishment rooted in hopelessness and anger. It’s because of his moral and religious background that he believes no one is just a crime, we are more than the worst thing we’ve ever done. According to Stevenson, capital punishment in America is a lottery.

man supports the central idea that everyone isn’t always how they seem to be and this is shown because when you’re friends with someone their true identity will eventually reveal itself at some point in time. “Iago: I’m bleeding, but you didn’t kill me.” “Othello: I’m not sorry, either. I want you to live, since to me, death is happiness.” (Act 5, Scene 2, Page 16) Othello wanted Iago to live miserable since he made Othello commit murder to someone who was completely innocent and who he loved dearly. Nobody would really think that Iago was that devious to make someone do that. “Othello: I believe you, and I ask you to forgive me.