More handpicked essays just for you.
Capital punishment solutions
Capital punishment solutions
Research proposal historical development of death penalty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today. Proponents of the death penalty are right to argue that capital punishment does provide a sense of “closure” to those who are faced with the tragedy of losing a loved one due to homicide, but they exaggerate when they claim that this is the only means by which murderers receive just punishment for their crimes. Advocates of the death penalty fail to recognize that there are alternative methods – such as psychotherapy – that are able to replace the barbaric method of the death penalty. The death penalty is an economically wasteful method of punishment. It has been calculated that “if the death penalty was extinguished…we could save $11 million a year” (Locke). While this may not seem a significant sum, ... ... middle of paper ... ...eath penalty. America as a nation needs to get out of their rut in the past, and on to the road to the future. Works Cited Capote, Truman. In Cold Blood. New York:Vitnage International, 1994. Print. "Executions by State in the U.S.” AmnestyUSA.com. Amnesty USA, March 2010. Web. 1 March 2010. King, Coretta Scott. “The Death Penalty Is a Step Back.” Patterns Plus: A Short Prose Reader with Argumentation, Fifth Edition. Ed. Mary Lou Conlin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1995. 357-359. Print. Locke, Mandy. “Study: End Death Cases, Save Money.” The News and Observer (2009). ProQuest. Web. 22 February 2010. Royko, Mike. “Death to the Killers.” Patterns Plus: A Short Prose Reader with Argumentation, Fifth Edition. Ed. Mary Lou Conlin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1995. 353-356. Print. Zimring, Franklin. “Marking Time On Death Row.” ProQuest. Web. 22 February 2010.
Tierney, Diann Rust. “Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?” The New York Times Upfront, 07, Oct. 2013 :22
In Coretta Scott King’s essay, “The Death Penalty is a Step Back”, the readers are shown the author's view of the death penalty and how she supports this stance by using the three rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos, to draw the reader in to her paper.
At first glance, it may seem that maintaining a life-term prisoner is more burdensome for taxpayers. However, according to Richard C. Dieter, the cost of a death penalty may amount to or even surpass the expenditures of handling less severe punishments for similar cases. Actually, the imposition of capital punishment requires complicated and numerous trials which can take a great amount of time. During this period, the defendant remains incarcerated and his maintenance is paid for with taxpayers’ money. Additional pre-trial time is needed to impose a death sentence with the involvement law experts, attorneys and additional trials (Dieter). All of these procedures require additional expenditures which make a death trial a costly
The death penalty, as administered by states based on their individual laws, is considered capital punishment, the purpose of which is to penalize criminals convicted of murder or other heinous crimes (Fabian). The death penalty issue has been the focus of much controversy in recent years, even though capital punishment has been a part of our country's history since the beginning. Crimes in colonial times, such as murder and theft of livestock were dealt with swiftly and decisively ("The Death Penalty..."). Criminals were hanged shortly after their trial, in public executions. This practice was then considered just punishment for those crimes. Recently though, the focus of the death penalty debate has been on moral and legal issues. The murderers of today's society can be assured of a much longer life even after conviction, with the constraints of the appeals process slowing the implementation of their death sentence. In most cases, the appeal process lasts several years, during which time criminals enjoy comfortable lives. They have television, gym facilities, and the leisure time to attend free college-level classes that most American citizens must struggle to afford. Foremost, these murderers have the luxury of time, something their victims ran out of the moment their paths crossed. It is time this country realized the only true justice for these criminals is in the form of the death penalty. The death penalty should be administered for particularly heinous crimes.
There are over sixty offenses in the United States of America that can be punishable by receiving the death penalty (What is..., 1). However, many individuals believe that the death penalty is an inadequate source of punishment for any crime no matter how severe it is. The fact remains, however, that the death penalty is one of the most ideal forms of punishment. There are other individuals who agree with the idea that capital punishment is the best form of punishment. In fact, some of these individuals believe that this should be the only form of punishment.
The cost of the death penalty is extraordinary. California has spent more than $4 billion administering the death penalty since 1978, or more than $300 million per person for each of the 13 people who have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated. Conversely, it costs approximately $200,000 to $300,000 to convict and sentence an individual to life without the possibility of parole. If those sentenced to death received life sentences instead, we accomplish the same deterrent effect of the death penalty: criminals remain off the streets for the rest of their lives. The money saved could be spent on improving the criminal justice system such as increasing
"The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2014.
Enforcing death penalty in itself deters people from getting suitable opportunity to ensure that rehabilitation is enhanced. It is necessary to note that many individuals who have been charged with capital punishment have been emotionally and psychologically unstable. Enforcing the death penalty therefore denies them room for rehabilitation. There is a need to advance towards rehabilitation as opposed to advocating for execution. If individuals know that upon committing a capital offence they will be sentenced to death, they will hardly consider reform programs. It is also crucial to note that there is no concrete evidence on advantages derived from the death penalty. The truth is that it only aids in perpetuating death and chains of violence. Prisons should serve as centers to rehabilitate violent fellows, and then return them to the community as fully reformed and responsible individuals. It is therefore not justifiable that a death penalty should be enforced to them at all
Offenders given mandatory life in prison on charges of murder, on average only serve 16 years before being released back into society. One in three of these killers carries out a second murder even under the supervision of the probation officer.1 If we allow murderers to spend life in prison we run the chance of them getting out and killing again. Capital punishment can also deter future perpetrators from committing such a heinous crime, and it will end the prisoner’s suffering by giving them a humane death and give closure to the victim’s family. Without a concrete meaning of “life in prison” we need the death penalty to put an end to the most evil of people.
The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. According to Hugo A. Bedau, the writer of “The Death Penalty in America”, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The death penalty has been used since ancient times for a variety of offenses. The Bible says that death should be done to anyone who commits murder, larceny, rapes, and burglary. It appears that public debate on the death penalty has changed over the years and is still changing, but there are still some out there who are for the death penalty and will continue to believe that it’s a good punishment. I always hear a lot of people say “an eye for an eye.” Most people feel strongly that if a criminal took the life of another, their’s should be taken away as well, and I don’t see how the death penalty could deter anyone from committing crimes if your going to do the crime then at that moment your not thinking about being on death role. I don’t think they should be put to death they should just sit in a cell for the rest of their life and think about how they destroy other families. A change in views and attitudes about the death penalty are likely attributed to results from social science research. The changes suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment in America (Radelet and Borg, 2000).
The Death Penalty should be discontinued to the families, human rights, and statistics. The families of the victim and the family of the one, who committed the crime, have no closure at all. The death penalty is killing a human for being convicted of a terrible crime one family may think its right but both suffer by their lost ones. “Although true closure is never really possible for the families, studies have shown that the continual process, along with the returning to court for many years, force families to confront the gruesome details of the crime many times over, making it impossible to get on with their lives. As difficult as that is the question is weather the victims needs are met effectively by killing someone else and causing another family grief and pain as well as adding to the cycle of violence.” (Progress) As both families do not want to see each other because they all have pain and hate for one another. They both relive the last memories of their loved one and they can’t help but cry and stare at the pictures they were once happy in. The families both have sadness when its their loved ones birthday. If the victim is married or have kids, their kids suffer and the husband/wife suffer as well. Although the families will never get there loved one back they still suffer on what had happen. Both families blame one another for having to take flowers, to their dead family member or visit their family member in a cemetery because of what happen. None of them is truly happy that they lost a family member. The families miss the person who seemed so happy, and also know that they are in a better place watching over them. Although the families aren’t happy about losing them, but are relieved to know that nothing else can hurt them. As one family feels sorry for the other family, there could be the family that doesn’t care what happens but wants everyone to suffer the way they are suffering about the tragic death of one family member.
“The case Against the Death Penalty.” aclu.org. American Civil Liberties Union, 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013
Eaton, Judy, Tony Christensen. “Closure and its myths: Victims’ families, the death penalty, and the closure argument.” International Review of Victimology, Vol 20(3).Sep, 2014. : pp. 327-343.
However, on the other hand, to execute death penalty is also costly. In the article, “Death Penalty Is Too Expensive for States, Study Find”, Warren Richey mentioned about the cost of death penalty. For example, in the article, he said “New York spent $170 million over nine years on capital cases before repealing the death penalty. No executions were carried out there. New Jersey spent $253 million over 25 years with no executions.” He also menti...
Schonebaum, Stephen E. "A Swifter Death Penalty Would Be An Effective Deterrent." Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? San Diego: David L. Bender; Greenhaven Press Inc. 1998. 18.