There are as many as thirty-six states with the death penalty, and it’s essential that they change it. The United States needs the death penalty abolished because it is filled with flaws, cruel and immoral, and is an ineffective means of deterrent for crime. I understand why you would want to have the death penalty in effect. You probably think that it will be cheaper to execute people instead of paying taxes for them in jail. There is also a probability that you think that you will give families of victims’ closure.
The supporters claim that the death penalty will eliminate criminals and that these offenders will not be around to repeat any future crimes. Legally, criminals should be "innocent until proven guilty;” but in reality, they are often accused to be "guilty until proven innocent.” However, the abolitionists argue that innocent people have been mistakenly placed on death row and executed because of the flaws in the current criminal justice system. Amnesty International discovered that “innocent people may be sentenced to death through judicial error” ("Evidence Against Death Penalty”). As a result, tragedies are irreversible. An innocent victim by the name of “Steven Truscott was wrongly convicted of murder… It was horrible for Truscott and the victim 's family because the real culprit got away with murder” (Wheeler).
Closing sentence: The US should have think in a better way if it really need to execute those criminals, or if it can use that money to improve its citizens’ lives and take care of them. Body paragraph 2nd reason (your stance) Topic Sentence: The Death Penalty does not guarantees the public safety. Introduce quote 1: When a state execute a criminal, the possibly of get murder in the streets do not dismiss, states are killing people for nothing. The death of a criminal do not guarantees that safety of the society, so what can the US do for their country? Quote: Cornell law professor Blume illustrates, “We spend a lot of money to execute a very small number of people.
Does this mean that we should throw out the death penalty because people, who did not really deserve to die, were killed? No, we have changed the laws, and no one gets the death penalty unless they deserve to die. Capital punishment should stay around. Yes, there are some maldistributions on the way it is opposed on a person, but those maldistributions are imposed on guilty people. Capital punishment is feared by potential murderers because once it is ordered on them they are not coming back.
It will save society from stooping depriving the poor of fair justice, save money and reduce murder. Death penalty in the USA are usually handed out on the basis of racism against the minority and/or more times and harshly murder victims being white. The justice system isn’t or will ever be perfect as the continuing evidence in sentencing death penalty to the innocent and mentally ill in many cases have occurred. Now let’s get into how specifically the death penalty negatively affects us all. Death penalty destroys society
Since the formation of the United States criminal justice system, the death penalty existed. Our society believed that punishment is equality to justice. There was this mentality of an eye or an eye, if you kill someone then the only way to compensate for the death of that person was for the family to kill you. Over the years, the death penalty has splits the United States of America in half because some people believe that the death penalty is needed and other believe that the death penalty should be abolished or reformed. For the death penalty, there is an array of explanations that can convince people that it is an infraction to human rights and a corruption to the American image.
Max Soffar, whose mental illness left him particularly vulnerable to giving a false confession, stands convicted and sentenced to death for allegedly killing four victims during an armed robbery in a Houston bowling alley (Thorn, par. 2). The court overturned the conviction in 2004 because during his trial, lawyers failed to argue that Soffars confession contradicted the other evidence in the case, and he ended up on death row (Thorn, par. 4). From two unfair trials to a death sentence, the court ruled that the false confession given by Soffar should stand.
An accurate definition would be: the government killing people that killed other people to stop people from killing other people. The question now is, is that logical? Is it logical to kill someone to prevent others from killing? No, it is not. The death penalty should be abolished because it is morally wrong and it is very expensive.
However, many debates are rising between people about whether or not capital punishment is a good thing or a bad thing. Not everyone agrees with the idea of a person being put to death for a crime. One opposing argument for capital punishment is that it is hypocritical and immoral because it does the very thing the government is trying to stop. Another argument is the death penalty can kill innocent people if not fully proven guilty. Finally, the death penalty also denies the sanctity of life; by executing people, the action does not protect their life and, therefore, denies the sanctity of a human being’s right to be alive in the world.
Our legal system is ment to rid society of evil, and by killing the murderers and rapists it clears them out of the genetic pool and also gives an example to others of what not to do. Although it may seem cruel to systematically kill people based on one act in their life, it is justifiable because those people have the potential to kill again, and if they are going to hurt someone they should be kept from society.