More handpicked essays just for you.
The effects of the death penalty
The impact of the death penalty on society
The effects of the death penalty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Few trials have been polarized to the extent that the Jodi Arias murder trial has. There are several factors set out in determining the proper punishment in a case like this, but does this trial meet all the criteria? There is a lot of evidence to go over in respect to the Jodi Arias trial and much of it is very compelling, but do people understand the difference between a woman guilty of murder and a woman who is legally eligible for the death penalty. Many people do not recognize the boundaries between legal and personal belief when it comes to murder trials. People tend to have a preconceived notion of the crime committed and their own ideas regarding the death penalty, but not many people take into account the specifics that must be met in order to enforce a law. So the question now remains; did Jodi Arias commit a murder that is eligible for the death penalty? More importantly, should Jodi Arias receive the death penalty based on the criteria? Jodi Arias should receive the death penalty because she has been convicted of murder, and also because the murder fits all criteria set forth by the state of Arizona in regards to being eligible for the death penalty.
The Jodi Arias trial captured American attention very rapidly and soon become nearly the only thing on television news networks. The trial nearly monopolized Fox News for several months. There are several murders that happen every day in the United States, so how did this murder case gain so much attention? Because it contains many themes that are enticing to the American population. According to Elliott McLaughlin at CNN.com, “It's rife with sex, lies and digital images, many of them naughty, and the dueling attorneys are lively -- nay, bombastic -- in their arguments...
... middle of paper ...
... differently depending on what their personal biases and prejudices are. This shows that just because the jury could not successfully sentence her to the death penalty, it does not mean that she in undeserving.
The Jodi Arias trial has been incredibly sensationalized by the media. It has been on every large news network, and undoubtedly will be again when sentencing recommences. All of the evidence has been laid out on the table and was taken into account when the verdict was reached. Jodi Arias should be sentenced to death because she has met all the necessary criteria to have deserved the sentence under Arizona state law. She killed Travis Alexander in a way that could reasonable be assumed to be cruel. She has been convicted of murder, and the facts of the murder are no longer under dispute. She committed the crime without thought for the suffering of the victim.
The author is arguing that the execution of a few innocent does not outweigh the larger amount of the guilty who are sentenced to death.
The smell of death and decay, emanated inside the trunk of a Pontiac Sunfire. A missing child; only to be reported 31 days after she went missing, found dead in a forest close to her home. And a mother who was accused of murder, who got off with no charges, even with evidence stacking against her. This all started with one 9-1-1 phone call from a concerned grandmother who has not seen her grandchild in a month. Casey Anthony was the main headline in all the newspapers, cable television, and social media. Over more than 140 million people sat and watched as the trial played on, and a verdict was reached. This case was the largest and most polarizing case that America has ever seen.
There is no doubt in my mind that Casey Anthony fascinated people much more than she would have if she had not been an attractive, young woman. While everyone had an opinion on the case, that they felt obliged to talk about, and give the same recycled, regurgitated opinions on, at the end of the day you can't really blame them. The media is really just an extension of the masses. What gets reported is based upon what interests people, and this case sure did interest people. I think this level of exposure oftentimes benefits the defendants because evidence becomes over saturated to a point where it blinds the jury from seeing the basic points of the case, and the foundation for a guilty verdict. Casey Anthony's trial is often compare to the O.J. Simpson trial for reasons similar to this. The trials are among the most high profile cases to take place during the new media era, and the not guilty verdict created public outrage and calls for Anthony to be punished. Media figures discussed why prosecutors failed to convict in what seemed to be a can't-miss trial. One reason the guilty verdict fell through could be the lack of Casey Anthony's DNA or fingerprint evidence at the scene of where the body was recovered. This is known as the CSI effect, and involves a jury's desire for forensic evidence, even when a clear picture of the crime is created, and a logical motive is present (English). Many criticized
During the time that O.J was on trial for the murders of Nicole and Ronald, everyone who was following the hearing had a deep sense of fear and pity. They were fearing that the man they once adored and aspired to be like was actually capable of committing such an inconspicuous crime. Also, due to the accusations of the murder, the viewers were also feeling in the sense of pity, in both sadness and disappointment. The acts that O.J Simpson was accused of caused the audience to feel disappointed in his actions, as well as sadness towards his family. The accusations developed about O.J left people who didn’t even personally know him in tears. People were so sad about his downfall. The accusation led to the fact that O.J left his family with no mother and technically no father, as he’d be spending time in prison. Furthermore, since he was found not guilty, there was a large part of the audience that felt a sense of release and emotion, and some felt bad that he was ever accused of this, but rather he just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Due to the fact that O.J and Nicole were separated for a couple years before she died, Nicole had made new friendships, and there was no proof that someone new that she met could have caused this crime and tried to frame Simpson, due to his past accused abuse
Did Jodi Arias plan to kill Travis Alexander? or Did she kill him in self-defense?
Judge Kaufman made a big point when Ethel used her Fifth Amendment right and declined to answer questions on the basis that she might incriminate herself. The judge said, "it is something that the jury may weigh and consider on the questioning of the truthfulness of the witness and on credibility." Not only that, but the judge allegedly would lead prosecuting witnesses to say things against defense. Defense lawyer Alexander Block tried to get a mistrial based on the judge's behavior, but was denied. Judge's bias continued throughout the trial and was expressed most clearly in his sentencing speech. The issue of punishment in this case is presented in a unique framework of history.
Since the beginning of modern law, capital punishment has been present in our world. Ranging from the guillotine to lethal injection, over time people have discovered more “humane” ways to execute a convicted criminal. Opinions on the subject may vary depending on certain situations, such as the victim being a family member or close friend. Although there are solid pro-arguments for the death penalty I believe there is enough evidence that implies it should not be legal in any way, shape or form.
Is the death penalty fair? Is it humane? Does it deter crime? The answers to these questions vary depending on who answers them. The issue of capital punishment raises many debates. These same questions troubled Americans just as much in the day of the Salem witch trials as now in the say of Timothy McVeigh. During the time of the Salem witchcraft trials they had the same problem as present society faces. Twenty innocent people had been sentenced to death. It was too late to reverse the decision and the jurors admitted to their mistake. The execution of innocent people is still a major concern for American citizens today.
Don’t get me wrong, if a person proven guilty of murder, especially as heinous as this crime was, they deserve the death penalty but only if there was “no shadow of a doubt” hard pieces of evidence, more real proof, not circumstantial evidence, are connecting that person to the crime.
“How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” According to DPIC (Death penalty information center), there are one thousand –four hundred thirty- eight executions in the United States since 1976. Currently, there are Two thousand –nine hundred –five inmates on death row, and the average length of time on death row is about fifteen years in the United States. The Capital punishment, which appears on the surface to the fitting conclusion to the life of a murder, in fact, a complicated issue that produces no clear resolution.; However, the article states it’s justice. In the article “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” an author David B. Muhlhausen illustrates a story of Earl Ringo , Jr, brutal murder’s execution on September ,10,
(Baude, 21). This quote provides details of why the finality in the decisions regarding death may not accurately represent the justice the accused deserves. It augments the ultimate overarching point made by Scheck and Rust-Tierney that we should not determine death. Despite the strong points made throughout the debate, there were key issues that Schneck and Rust-Tierney adequately refuted. The first was their failure when they lacked a counter to Scheidegger’s point on how inmates are often treated in the facilities themselves.
Before the jury stands the defendant. There is overwhelming evidence in the favor of the prosecution. The verdict comes back from the jury, not guilty. Why? The defendant is a woman. In our era of equal rights and civil liberties women have made great strides in their advancement and role in society, yet it seems that gender segregates when it comes to crime. There have been countless cases where women and men have been tried for the same crime, yet when it comes to verdict and sentencing, the results don’t necessarily match. If one commits a crime one should be punished accordingly regardless of gender. In our society we seem to have two separate rules for our criminals, one for men and one for women. The key issue is are men and women treated equally by the criminal justice system. Another issue in gender biased sentencing is in its is its severity. Are women sentenced heavier for certain crimes then men.
The biggest trial of the century has been said to have been the O.J. Simpson trial. People flocked to their favorite public places to be with friends so they could watch the trial together. Some even gave up sleep so to get as much information about the case as possible. The Simpson trial seemed to
"In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die." (Macy). This poor mother watched her child get killed in front of her eyes only to get murdered afterwards and never received the proper justice she deserved. The murderer who committed this heinous felony only got time in prison. Is it not fair that this man should have received the death penalty after committing such a brutal murder? He murdered this poor mother and child and received an unfair punishment. If he were to have received the death penalty if would have done some just to the family. There is absolutely no way for the mother and child to receive full proper justice, but if the convict had gotten the death penalty it would be a step in the right direction. If someone such as a family member or a person who you are close with was to be murdered, would it not be fair for the crook who murdered them to receive the death penalty? It is only moral for that delinquent to suffer the same fate as
Prosecutors found that she murdered him in a jealous rage because he wanted to break up the relationship. Arias was found guilty for the murder and she now has to be in prison for life. She shot alexander and stabbed him thirty times; they found alexander in the shower dead with hid throat cut open. Arias told the judge she wanted the death penalty but the judge refused to listen to her. She said alexander tried to attack her in self-defense but she quickly stabbed him. My personal view on this population is that the inmate serving life in prison shouldn’t have too many special services, especially to those who murder. The offender murdered someone and they should pay for that. Most of the inmates serving life without parole didn’t murder, some robbed, and some sexually assaulted other people. Inmates serving life for robbing should be treated better than the ones who murdered or the one who raped someone. Some facilities treat the prisoners that murdered or raped someone just life the other prisoners, the inmate that committed murder or sexually assaulted should not be treated as if what they did is