There is no equality in such crimes. The death penalty should stay because we need it. If someone commits a crime they should take full responsibility for their actions. We do not need to keep them in jail. If they stayed in jail then they are still alive and someone innocent had to die because of their actions.
It will be more beneficial to society as a whole if we abolish double jeopardy, to correct the mistakes of the justice system and essential for progression. Double jeopardy is the sole reason why some criminals walk free. The justice court is fallible: ineffective representation or perjury testimony would ultimately cause a wrongful conviction. Wrongful convictions are a concern of everybody, the families of the victims or the lawyers
"I believe the death penalty should be used sparingly for heinous, forensically supported crimes. In these cases, I truly believe that our foremost responsibility is to ensure our own safety and that of our children and our communities," (-Anonymous). People want closure and security after something so tragic has happened. The death penalty may seem harsh to some people, but in the end is the right thing to do. People will need justice and security, they need that relief that the killer will not come back and do anything.
The sheer ruthlessness of the punishments discourage any sort of crime as they will scare the citizens into never breaking the law in fear of the consequences. The document “Crime and Punishment in the Elizabethan Era” also points out that the law was flexible and could be applied differently based on the situation. When a person was convicted of treason, they were not always executed immediately. Some were inhumanely tortured for more information to see if they were working with others, despite the obvious lack of morality in doing this, it worked. However, on the other hand, the Elizabethan Law did have at least some moral sense to it as people some were spared from torture, and even execution in certain circumstances.
It’s immoral to be in favor of the death penalty. People who support it believe that by executing criminals well prevent them from murdering again, and they feel they deserve to feel the feeling of cruelty as they did to others. Citizens of the United States are fond to similar privileges and assurances. As Americans, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People believe that if a murder takes this rights from a person, why should they still be connected to society?
Even if it means letting innocent people die for crimes they did not do. Arthur Miller makes it clear that having a good name is more important that the truth, Proctor, Parris, and Danforth all decided their name and reputation was more important than the lives of innocent people. Their decisions went deeper and deeper and made things get worse. Having a good name effected how Proctor acted because he doesn 't want to tell the truth about things he knows just to keep his name. Reputation effects Parris because, he doesn 't want to go against the bible and be accused of working with the devil.
I don’t think it’s right to euthanize people with mental disabilities because they’re still people and they still have hope for a better future and their life is still important even if it doesn’t seem like it. I do agree with George killing Lennie because Lennie would die a really harsh, painful, and slow death by the other men that were trying to find him if George didn’t calm him down and shoot him. Of course, it was the biggest plot twist in the whole book and it broke our hearts, but George did if for the best. In conclusion, George did the right thing and actually helped Lennie instead of harming him and others around
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).
Movies alluding to death sentencings in kingdoms, where typically the subject gets their head taken off is what comes to most minds who aren’t educated on the topic. Although those receiving the death penalty may not have gotten their sentence by being humane, the state prides their practice in killing ethically and by choice. Recently, Nebraska voters restored capital punishment in the state. The most substantial main reasoning for the use of judicial murder practices include morality, cost and closure. The government aside from compassion for those effected by the convict, supports the penalty because of “cost of death vs. life in prison” according to Robert Evnen, Nebraskan for capital punishment attorney.
In In Cold Blood, the issue over the death penalty is prominent. Did Perry and Dick deserve to die? Should the severity of one’s crime determine one’s fate? Although Truman Capote writes the novel in a straightforward, “from a distance” way, he conveys, through his characters, theme, and plot development, that the death penalty is an issue that should be looked at from all sides and that the legal system itself is the real issue at hand, and that the death penalty is used as a means to suppress the distress and indignation of the citizens surrounding the case, instead of suppressing the victim himself. It is clear that Truman Capote believes that the systematic execution of murderers is flawed, and that the legal system in which death-penalty bound convicts are tried is a skewed one.