I agree with the law that people who commit crimes need to be punished for their wrong doings. However, I do not agree with the way that the law thinks that problem should be handled through the death penalty. The bad part about the death penalty is that innocent people are executed, there is racism in the death penalty, the mentally retarded are executed, and the death penalty is costly.
As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated. People who are found guilty and sentenced to death row can truly be innocent. It is said by Amnesty International a campaigning movement that works to promote all the human rights that, "since 1973 at least 53 men were released from death row in seventeen US stated due to significant evidence of their innocence and that some prisoners escaped execution by minutes but 23 were actually executed". Everyone is not perfect. People can fall victim to false testimonies, mistaken identification, community prejudice, and pressure. These are just a few ways in which a person can be found guilty of a crime. These are crucial mistakes that can happen and a person can quickly be sentenced to the death penalty without second thought. Innocent people should not have to experience situations so terrifying which could lead a person to flip out and go insane. There is no reason for an innocent person to be killed for being at the wrong place at the wrong time or for some other ridiculous mis...
At the end of this article the board poses the questions, “How many more [innocent people] remain on death row today? Can the American people be assured that none will be killed by the state?” This serves to put the thought in reader’s heads that maybe many more people on death row are innocent. Using this device the board hopes that after reading this article people will question their own viewpoints on this issue, consider the repercussions of the death penalty, and perhaps even share the article and start a discussion about it with their friends and
For example, Ted Bundy and terrorists like Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh who have committed serious crimes. Furthermore, during the first decade of the 21st century there were 26 percent more executions in the U.S. than in the 20th century. For instance, during the same time period, the U.S. murder rate decreased by 24 percent (Marquis, 22). However, how would you know if someone was innocent or not? What if they had been framed by the actual killer? That’s why it would take a long and complex process to find out whether that person had not committed such crime. Therefore, innocent people could be put to death for doing no such crimes.
I do not consider the death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment for persons convicted of one or more murders. For instance, my example of a convicted criminal deserving of the death penalty is Andrea Yates. I believe the only adequate justice for the murder of her five children is that she be given the death penalty. What she did to those children was certainly cruel and unusual and since she was given a fair trial by a jury of her peers and found guilty she be subject to death due to the heinous nature of the multiple homicides she committed. To spite my personal disdain for her actions under the law she and persons like her are still entitled to a fair trail (which she already had), as well as the appeals process, but I feel strongly that the death penalty should be used in place of life sentencing.
Are there really innocent people on death row? At least twenty-three people have been executed who did not commit the crime they were accused of (JAICLC). And that 's only those that we know. And here lies a natural danger of capital punishment...when we execute an innocent person; the real killer is still on the streets, ready to victimize someone else. But when an innocent person is arrested, he is often the motivating reason behind further investigation, and if he is executed, than the case remains closed forever or until someone else gets killed by the real perpetrator. Often the only people who know what really happened are the accused and the dead. It then comes down to the skill of the examination and the defense lawyers as to whether there will be a conviction for accidental murder or for manslaughter. At times, a detective could naturally make an error and possibly lead to the conclusion that the innocent committed the crime. Whether it be multiple years in prison or even capital punishment there is no possible way of revenging or forgiving the judge and jury for this miscarriage of justice. There must always be the concern that the state can order the death penalty justly. In America, a prisoner can be on death row for many years awaiting the outcome of numerous appeals (Short). In simpler terms killing another being with or without evidence is not fair, decent, or ethically
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
The death penalty is something that many people do not have a clear decision on. Many people support the death penalty, while others wish for the death penalty to be abolished, and there are some that support the death penalty, but only in certain cases. My personal opinion on the death penalty is it should be administered only in cases of particularly
If an error occurs in the procedure, the criminal will face a painful and cruel death. Even more horrifying, an innocent person can be placed on death row. “The reality is that there are few innocent people on death row; the vast majority of these inmates did, in fact, commit the crimes for which they were found guilty. These killers brutally took the lives of innocent victims. By not recognizing the lives of their victims as sacred, they cannot claim their own lives are sacred. In the end, the death penalty is an individual punishment for an individual crime” (Bowman and DiLascio). Although this quote tries to offer a counterpoint to the argument that the death penalty should be abolished, it still admits that there are innocent people on death row. An innocent man placed on death row results in two casualties of innocent men while the brutal murderer sleeps peacefully each night. Errors in the death penalty can destroy families, terminate friendships, and disintegrate love and companionship. Since there is no guarantee that every person on death row is guilty, it is too dangerous to risk more innocent
Throughout the years the death penalty has been a very controversial aspect when it comes to punishment. Some groups of people believe that is should be abolished and other think that America should keep it. I’m here to say that I am not for the death penalty at all. To me the death penalty has a couple of flaws that I have an issue looking past. The death penalty is very unconstitutional for anyone who is put through it and it is very bias on who it chooses for the punishment.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the year 1980 we had approximately 501,900 persons incarcerated across the United States. By the year 2000, that figure has jumped to over 2,014,000 prisoners. The current level of incarceration represents the continuation of a 25-year escalation of the nation's prison and jail population beginning in 1973. Currently the U.S. rate of 672 per 100,000 is second only to Russia, and represents a level of incarceration that is 6-10 times that of most industrialized nations. The rise in prison population in recent years is particularly remarkable given that crime rates have been falling nationally since 1992. With less crime, one might assume that fewer people would be sentenced to prison. This trend has been overridden by the increasing impact of lengthy mandatory sentencing policies.
“Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, 138 innocent men and women have been released from the death row, including some who came within minutes of execution. In Missouri, Texas and Virginia investigations have been opened to determine if those states executed innocent men. To execute an innocent person is morally reprehensible; this risk we cannot
The death penalty is racist, it punishes the poor, it causes the innocent to die, it is not a deterrent against violent crime, and it is cruel and unusual punishment. More than half of the countries in the world have already abolished the death penalty and the U.S should abolish it too. It is wrong and cruel. Some states in the U.S still hold the death penalty because they think it will keep U.S citizens safe, but we can just keep the murders in a separate patrolled jail. Abolish it and we may save the lives of the people that may have been executed innocent.
The death penalty is immoral and should be removed from every justice system across America because it puts the lives of innocent people at risk. If someone is wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death, there is a chance that they could be executed. Now an innocent victim and an innocent accused killer have died while the real killer is still free. Approximately 156 prisoners on death row have been exonerated, and it is impossible to tell how many more prisoners were innocent and still were executed (DPIC). An example of an innocent person being executed is the case of Cameron Willingham. Willingham was convicted of murdering three children in 1991 in a house fire. He was executed in 2004. A
There are many explanations for what punishment characterises. For Emile Durkheim, punishment was mainly an expression of social solidarity and not a form of crime control. Here, the offender attacks the social moral order by committing a crime and therefore, has to be punished, to show that this moral order still "works". Durkheim's theory suggests that punishment must be visible to everyone, and so expresses the outrage of all members of society against the challenge to their collective values. The form of punishment changes between mechanic (torture, execution) and organic (prison) solidarity because the values of society change but the idea behind punishing, the essence, stays the same - keeping the moral order intact not decreasing crime. Foucault has a different view of the role or function of punishment. For Foucault, punishment signifies political control. His theory compares the age of torture with the age of prison, concluding that the shift from the former to the latter is done due to changes in society and new strategies needed for the dominance of it by the rulers. Punishment for Foucault is a show of power first brutal and direct (torture), then organised and rational (prison). Punishment does not get more lenient because of humanitarian reasons but because the power relations in society change.
...st “end the death penalty”. There must still be a punishment inflicted upon those who deviate from the understanding that killing is wrong and the punishment must be strong enough to discourage others. I feel that the most effective punishment is complete social and sensory isolation, as well as life in prison. The punishment is not about inflicting pain or exacting revenge, it is about forcing the killer to stew in their own doing and be cut off from any form of enjoyment whatsoever. Anyone could agree that being deprived of even the simplest of pleasures is indeed the worst punishment one could endure aside from death. This also removes killers from society permanently. While I believe that it is wrong to relieve someone of their basic human rights, I feel that it is justified to relieve them of their legal rights if it is for the betterment and safety of society.
Crime is everywhere. Wherever we look, we find criminals and crime. Criminals have become a part of our daily lives. Does this mean we let them be the darkness of our society? No, definitely not. Eliminating crime and criminals is our duty, and we cannot ignore it. Getting the rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. Some criminals commit a crime because they have no other option to survive, but some do it for fun. I do not advocate death penalty for everybody. A person, who stole bread from a grocery store, definitely does not deserve death penalty. However, a serial killer, who kills people for fun or for his personal gain, definitely deserves death penalty. Death penalty should continue in order to eliminate the garbage of our society. Not everybody deserves to die, but some people definitely do. I support death penalty because of several reasons. Firstly, I believe that death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime. Secondly, it is true that death penalty is irreversible, but it is hard to kill a wrongly convicted person due to the several chances given to the convicted to prove his innocence. Thirdly, death penalty assures safety of the society by eliminating these criminals. Finally, I believe in "lex tallionis" - a life for a life.