Others see it as a very important tool in fighting violent pre-meditated murder. The death penalty should be abolished because of its financial costs to tax payers, it’s barbaric, and its ineffectiveness. The average American thinks would think that it’s simpler and cheaper to kill a convicted person rather than pay millions of tax dollars to keep the convict in jail for a life term. However, they are very wrong. One reason why the death penalty should be abolished is because of its expensive costs.
Also, there are some people that support death penalty, but only in certain cases. According to the Abolitionists, death penalty is an act of violence nothing else. Others believe that it can be used to prevent future crimes. Despite death penalty is a reasonable punishment, I am against it because it is another type of murder which is a cruel act. I strongly believe that a person who commits crime should not be punished by death penalty.
Perhaps the most frequently raised argument against capital punishment is that of its cost. Other thoughts on the death penalty are to turn criminals away from committing violent acts. A just argument against the death penalty would be that sentencing an individual to death prevents future crimes by other individuals. However, criminals are not afraid of the death penalty. The chance of a criminal being sentenced to death is very slim.
I say no, this is an intolerable number. Those members of society who are responsible for these heinous crimes should be brought to justice; the death penalty is one solution to this problem. In the 1600’s the death penalty was first instituted when “William the Conqueror” allowed those who had committed murder to be hung for their crimes. One would think twice about committing murder if the penalty was death, right? Due to crime growing exponentially, it would seem that drastic measures need to be taken in an attempt to minimize or end these unforgivable
The taxpayers are the ones that end up paying for those defenders. When selecting a jury, it is more time consuming and more expensive than a regular trial. There are expectations of a jury for the death penalty because it goes longer than normal. With a death penalty case, you normally have a pre-trial that is a little more complicated than a normal trial. In the pre-trial, there is forensic evidence that is introduced as well as the defendant’s mental and social history.
But, to advocate execution will only leave us as hypocrites, rather than avengers of justice. The validity of the death penalty is negligible, as is the human ability to weigh the value of life. Conceivably it is possible to decrease the levels of heinous crime today. But, when heinous crime is punished with the same, we are no better than the criminals are. Rationalization of the death penalty only equates to judicial murder.
There is also a probability that you think that you will give families of victims’ closure. On the hand, it costs more to execute a person than it is to keep people alive in prison. In comparison, it is just another way to get revenge and will just create a cycle of hatred. Additionally, the death penalty is filled with flaws. There are chances that the system might convict an innocent citizen.
Both Sides of Capital Punishment Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with an intentional or criminal intent. In today's world, terrible crimes are being committed daily. Many believe that these criminals deserve one fate: death. Capital punishment, the death penalty, is the maximum sentence used in punishing people who kill another human being - and is a very controversial method of punishment. In most states, a person convicted of first degree murder has the potential to be given the death penalty.
You will not kill. How does it say it? By killing!” Although the statement is memorable and appealing, it is also misleading and deceptive. Capital punishment does not demonstrate the wrongfulness of killing by killing; it demonstrates the wrongfulness of killing by executing convicted murderers after a fair trial. The death penalty is enforced to illustrate that murder is intolerable: if one takes the life of an innocent human, then one will suffer th... ... middle of paper ... ...dges then conclude if the suspect is guilty and decide whether the criminal will receive the death penalty; the family does not.
Some maldistribution of the death penalty is unavoidable, but that does not mean we should throw out the death penalty. When the death penalty is imposed on an innocent person that is a serious miscarriage of justice. However, when people talk about the maldistribution of the death penalty they are not referring to when it is imposed on an innocent person rather when the death penalty is imposed on guilty minorities, or low income whites, who can not afford a good lawyer. Even if maldistribution occurs among people who should receive the death penalty that is irrelevant to the morality of the death penalty. It is really too bad that if you have money you can get your way out of the death penalty, but money talks in this country.