Synthesis Essay On The Death Penalty
For most of human civilisation, death sentences have been in common use. Most of the time, death sentences have been issued to people who break the law. However, the use of death is controversial in its effects and morality. Today, the death penalty is constantly debated about on whether it should be used or not. The death penalty is usually issued to those commit "terrorism, treason, hijacking resulting in the death of a hostage, or the killing of a police[officer] or prison guard acting in the line of duty" (Source D). As source B indicates, opinions on the death penalty are mixed as the percentages of those in favour and of those opposed fluctuate. The death penalty is unjust as a form of punishment for committing a major felony. The death penalty is permanent and is morally wrong. The penalty of death is a permanent solution as a punishment. Often times in court cases, there is a "likelihood of a miscarriage of justice"(Source C). There is often a miscarriage of justice in cases. In court cases, there are doubts that are voiced. If they are ordered the death penalty, they may be found out to be innocent. However, they...show more content...
The mother of a murder victim has stated "Responding to one killing with another killing does not [honour] my daughter"(Source F). The killing of another person doesn't mean we should kill another for justice. In reality, the death sentences is based on emotional reactions as we try to sympathise with the victims. This should not be the way cases should be run, since they should be based off factual evidence. Society needs to realise that "The standard for depriving one of life should be higher than any other legal action"(Source C). The loss of a life is a difficult choice to make as a society, even if it's the judgement of a criminal. However, we are no better than the criminal if we kill them as well. People need to learn from its mistakes, as well as help others learn from their
Get more content
Today, many criminals are getting away with very little or no punishment for the crimes they are committing. One of these thugs could be walking down the street in your neighborhood hunting for their next victim. These criminals have no remorse concerning what they have done; they are just looking for an opportunity to strike again.
However, if someone asked what your thought is on the death penalty, most would probably say that they are against it that is until a family member or someone you love is walking down the street and that man who was looking for their next victim found them. It was a family member and you will never see them again.
Capital punishment has been a topic of debate for a very long time and it still has...show more content... Then a second penalty phase takes place and the prosecution will state the aggravating factors and the defense can show mitigating factors ("Pros and cons of controversial issues," 2009). The jury must unanimously agree to the death penalty and if one objects then the death penalty cannot be given ("Pros and cons of controversial issues," 2009). If the death penalty is handed down, then the defendant has an automatic right to appeal at both the State and Federal levels. This process can take up to 25 years to exhaust.
There are pros and cons to consider in the debate on whether or not to abolish the death penalty:
Death Penalty Fails to Re–establish: What does it really accomplish? The damage has been done; the victim is already dead and cannot be brought back. Do you feel that making them spend the rest of their life in prison in a small cement cell with little freedom, a poor quality of life, thinking on how they ended up there in the first place is a far better punishment than death row?
The Financial Cost: The financial cost of keeping these criminals on death row is not free nor is it cheap; and we as taxpayers pay for it. The cost for a death row inmate one must consider all the additional cost it entails such as appeals, additional procedures. In March 6, 2005, the Los Angeles Times stated that California death penalty system cost taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for
Is the death penalty really a rational and effective way to respond to the crimes of certain prisoners? Thirty one percent of society believes we should not keep the death penalty, while others believe that the death penalty doesn't really keep crime from happening. Of the thirty one percent, many believe that executing offenders of the law only runs away from the issue at hand. Also, if society thinks about it, ending the penalty would cost less both physically and mentally. Lastly, abolishment of the penalty would help rid any of the negative and humane issues at hand: this involves the biblical verse; thou shalt not kill, and the national human rights law; article 3, and 5 of the Declaration of Independence. Is the death penalty going...show more content...
Since 1983, 60 mentally ill people have been executed. Also, it is estimated that around five to ten percent of the death row inmates are diagnosed with some form of mental illness.
Second, ending the death penalty would cost less, when involving the physical and emotional costs of the punishment. Within the physical aspects of the death penalty, it costs around 90,000 a year per inmate to stay on death row. The average estimated amount for each inmate, in total, is two million dollars. Death row costs almost four times as much as life imprisonment without parole. Since the death penalty costs such a great amount of money, this leads tax payers to pay thousands of unnecessary money towards the cause. If society realized that they were spending a bunch of their money on killing inmates, they may rethink allowing the penalty in the first place. When involving the emotional costs of the punishment, ending the death penalty would also cost less. Not only do people have to give up some of their annual salary, they also have to give up their mercy, compassion, and the family of the inmate's heartache. There is rarely any family who wants to see their loved one executed. The family is always trying to get the court to change their mind and allow the inmate to live. If a young child had a mother on death row, wouldn't that be cruel to take the mother away
Death Penalty
The death penalty is a controversial topic in the United States today and has been for a number of years. The death penalty was overturned and then reinstated in the United States during the 1970's due to questions concerning its fairness. The death penalty began to be reinstated slowly, but the rate of executions has increased during the 1990's. There are a number of arguments for and against the death penalty. Many death penalty supporters feel that the death penalty reduces crime because it deters people from committing murder if they know that they will receive the death penalty if they are caught. Others in favor of the death penalty feel that even if it doesn't deter others from committing crimes, it will eliminate ...show more content...
People opposed to the death penalty also point to the fact that over half of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, including all other major industrialized, democratic nations. In the five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty, the murder rate is 21.6 murders per 100,000 people. In the five countries with the highest homicide rates that do impose the death penalty, the murder rate is 41.6 murders per 100,000 people ("Deterrence"). Furthermore, the United States has the highest crime and murder rates of any of the other major democratic nations, all of which have abandoned the death penalty. In 1965, Great Britain called for a five–year suspension on executions following a recent decline in the imposition of the death penalty and growing anti–death penalty sentiments in the country. In 1969, the government abolished the death penalty altogether because there had been no surge in homicides or crime (Flanders 45). Death penalty opponents feel that these statistics lend credibility to the argument that the death penalty does not cause a decrease in homicides and in some instances may even lead to an increase in murders. Another valid point that death penalty opponents use is that the judicial system is not flawless, and that in the United Get
Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished
Why should the death penalty be abolished? The death penalty should be abolished because of many reasons. Many people believe the saying, 'an eye for an eye'. But when will people realize that just because someone may have killed a loved one that the best thing for that person is to die also. People don't realize that they are putting the blood of another person life on their hands. This makes them just as guilty as the person who committed the crime: the only difference is that they didn't use weapon except their mouth to kill them. The death penalty should be abolished because it is racist, punishes the poor, condemns those who are innocent to death, and is a cruel punishment....show more content...
A Georgia study found that killers of whites are 4.3 times more likely to receive a death sentence than killers of blacks. More than 75 percent of those on federal death row are non–white. Of the 156 federal death penalty prosecutions approved by the Attorney General since 1988, 74 percent of the defendants were non–white (governmentguide.com) . This shows that there is something definitely wrong with the judicial system. If this isn?t enough to convince you that the death penalty is wrong. Then people may need to look at other reasons.
The death penalty, does not only show unequal rights, but it also punishes the poor. It shows in recent studies that if an inmate can afford good legal representation, they might can get a lesser charge than death row. It also shows that ninety percent of defendants cannot afford to hire an experienced criminal defense lawyer. Since they cannot afford to hire one, they are forced to use inexperienced court–appointed attorneys that are being underpaid for their services. The less the court–appointed attorneys make, the less they want to make their defense so that they can get rid of this case, and start back making their usual amount of money.
There has been many inmates sentenced to death row that innocent. Since 1973, more than 99 people have been released from prison after being sentenced to death despite their innocence, The Social Psychology of Police Interrogation: The Get more content
The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, and violates the right to life. It's hard for me as a Swede to understand that a country such as USA still have that kind of punishment. For many people and nations the USA serves as a model, so it is to me very difficult to imagine how you can persuade nations like Burma and China to respect basic human rights when you don't do it yourself.
Body
A. Concerning the Death Penalty
Capital punishment the death penalty is supposed to select the worst criminals who committed the worst murders and punish them and protect society by taking their lives.
In numbers far beyond our greatest fears, innocent people are being convicted of murder and sentenced to death....show more content... In Florida, it costs S3.2 million per death case, six times the cost of a life sentence; in Texas, $2.3 million, three times the cost of sentencing a defendant to 40 years in a single cell in that state's high security prison. Wouldn't it really be better to spend those millions ofdollars on programs that might actually do something to reduce or prevent crime? Hire more police officers, improve education, provide better prenatal care, take your pick!
D. The death penalty hasn't been shown to be a deterrent to committing murders. Since 1976, the number of executions and the size of death row have steadily increased. Yet there has been virtually no change in the national murder rate. And the murder rate remains higher in death penalty states than in non–death penalty states. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, states with the death penalty have homicide rates of 7.4 to 100,000; states without the death penalty have a homicide rate of 4.9 to 100,000
Conclusion
It's natural to feel the need for revenge when a loved one is murdered. But what society needs is a system of criminal justice, not a system of criminal vengeance. Many places in this country get along fine without it: here in the Midwest, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin all
seem to be relatively civilized and peaceful places, even without the death penalty. In addition to the United States, the countries with the most documented executions in 1997 include
Get more content
Capital punishment or death penalty is a form of punishment mostly used for people that murder somebody. It is a very complex issue in today's world. There are very strong opinions on both sides of the argument. Some believe that every state should have it, and others believe that none should. It is so controversial because both sides believe that they are right and because death is so permanent. If you make a mistake, once the death penalty is imposed, there is no taking it back. Here are some of the views held by people about the death penalty. Some people strongly believe that the death penalty should be imposed on, at the very least, every murderer. Many believe that even lesser crimes warrant this punishment. They believe either that...show more content...
Capital punishment deters crime by causing world be murderers to fear arrest and conviction and by preventing convicted murderers from killing again. In recent years, violent crime in newyork has dropped dramatically, due in part to the restitution of the death penalty.since I took office in 1995 violent crime has dropped 23 per cent,assautlts are down 22 per cent and murders have dropped by nearly one–third. ... I believe this has occurred in part because of the strong signal that the death and our other tough new laws have sent to violent criminals and murderers. You will be punished with the full force of the law. No:capital punishment actually makes the fight against crime more difficult. Executions waste valuable resources that could be applied to more promising efforts to protect the public. Additionally , innocent people are sometimes executed and the brutalizing effect executions have on society may result in more murders. In 1994, 6100 criminals were sentenced to the state prison in manhattan (New York) and 9000 more were sent to city jail. In 1975, when I became district attorney, there were 648 homicides inmanhattan; in 1994, there were 330. The number has been cut vitually in half without executions_ proof to me that they are not needed to continue that trend. (
George E.Pataki ,1995Get more content
The Death Penalty Discussion
In today's world terrible crimes are being committed daily. Many people believe that these criminals deserve one fate; death. Death penalty is the maximum sentence used in punishing people who kill another human being and is a very controversial method of punishment. Capital punishment is a legal infliction of death penalty and since ancient times it has bee used to punish a large variety of offences. Criminals convicted of murder or rape need to be executed because they are danger to society and the human race. Other people still argue that one method of execution is just as brutal as the next.
The common sense argument that death is the best deterrent of crime...show more content... Society and its mixed feelings towards the death penalty; capital punishment is such a harsh and uncivilised way of treating criminals, but do they look at how the criminals are acting towards ending other human beings life. They do not care about the lives they have destroyed, or, the families of their victims. The death penalty can never bring back loved ones back to their families. It seems rationally to think that if potential killers are aware that if they commit serious crimes they would be put to death for it, they are less likely to commit these crimes again.
The concept of retribution and justice should bestow to society. This is imperative for peace to be maintained and that justice is served. If criminals were allowed to get away with such a serious crime as taking a humans life fear and chaos would rule. Sentence for life in prison will not be substantial enough. The government must be trusted to protect its innocent citizens from further crimes. A vast conception concerning death penalty is that it saves society the costs of keeping inmates imprisoned for long periods. In the act of preserving due process of justice, the court appeals involved with the death penalty becomes a long, drawn out and a long expensive process. Does it save its purpose? Does executing someone for crimes such as rape, murder, adultery, homosexual behaviour, and prostitution actually prevent Get
The most severe of all sentences: that of death. Also known as the death penalty, capital punishment is the most severe form of corporal punishment as it is requires law enforcement officers to kill the offender. It has been banned in many countries. In the United States, an earlier move to eliminate capital punishment has now been reversed and more and more states are resorting to capital punishment for serious offenses such as murder. In this essay, I will elaborate on capital punishment and on the cases of Joe Guy, Tommy Zeigler, Leroy Orange, and Charles Munsey.
The Bible mentions that one should not take another's life and people have been violating this for centuries. We use it in reference to burglary, adultery, love and many...show more content... Consider those jurisdictions that eschew capital punishment altogether. What sanction can such jurisdictions really apply to those who have already been sentenced to life in prison without parole? Sentences of this sort may take more lives overall by increasing the number of essentially unpunishable within prison homicides of guards and fellow inmates.53 Many murderers are killed in prison even in states that lack the death penalty.54 And if murderers are eventually paroled into the general population, some of them will kill again. Overall, it is quite possible that the permanent incapacitation of murderers through execution might save lives on net. A finding that capital punishment deters–and deterrence is our focus here–is sufficient but not necessary to find a life–life tradeoff.
With this being said capital punishment is serving in a positive way. If capital punishment spectator would look at it this way, and publicize it in a manner to get a message across to the violent offenders these corrupt crime wave would drop dramatically.
In the case involving Joe Guy, he was convicted for his role in a 1993 convenience–store robbery in Plainview, TX in which the store owner was killed, and his elderly mother wounded. Guy, alleged to be the unarmed lookout, received the death sentence; the alleged mastermind and shooters, in separate trials, received life sentences. Here a man is a "lookout" and is getting ready to be put to death, because of a
"More than 4,500 people have been executed in the United States since 1930. There is no way of knowing how many have been executed in U.S. history because executions were often local affairs, with no central agency keeping track of them (Maloney, 1999)." Over 4,500 people were executed and this doesn't even include the unreported deaths. Decades ago, death penalty cases were not even to be reported in many times. For many years, people have been rationalize themselves for death penalty as " an eye for an eye"(2010).This "eye for an eye" statement is no longer giving any excuses for killing humans. The controversial idea of whether humans are rational enough to decide someone's life or death has been questioned. Humans absolutely don't have...show more content...
People who commit the crime should get imprisoned for what they did for how long ever it is given. Murderer who took away other's lives should be imprisoned for what they did for the rest of their lives. Death penalty is absolutely not necessary because imprison itself will take away the whole lives; they will not be allowed to have any life as human in society. We kill him, because he killed is simply how death penalty works. Death penalty is only to take away people's life, not reasonable punishment for their sin. Of course, people think death penalty is not just about the punishment. People who believe in death penalty show the reason why they do is that death penalty for sure is a deterrent to homicide. They also take this as a justification of supporting death penalty system (2010). So people actually expect something out of this system other than just killing the murderers simply for what they did. This is supposed to be a great solution to make better society by lessoning the potential crime. In theory, the fact that society has a death penalty system should somewhat scares the potential murderer and prevents them from committing murder. But the percentage of murder crime shows the otherwise. Do potential murderers consider the death penalty before they the murder? The answers are likely to be No. "Most deterrence research has found that
Get more content
The death penalty is a very controversial subject. I think that we should use the death penalty instead of placing murderers, rapists, and people who commit treason in prison or letting them out on parol. People that commit the most heinous of crimes should receive the most heinous of consequences. Isn't that just the most fair way to deal with those offenders of the law?
From 1930, the first year of which statistics are readily available from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, to 1967, 3,859 people were executed under civil jurisdiction in the United States. During this period of nearly half a century, over half (54%) of those executed were blacks, 45 percent were white, and the remaining one percent were members of other...show more content...
If true, then we must wonder why whites represent 56% of those executed, and blacks 38% when blacks have committed 47% of all murders, and whites 38%. Whites are executed at rates nearly 50% above their involvement in murder, blacks are executed at rates 20% below their involvement in murder. From 1991–94, 34% of murderers have been white, 54% black.
Could it be that we just hate white murderers more? Or that we only care about white capital murder victims? Or should we conclude that the "system" focuses its benevolence toward black murderers, but its racism against black victims? How crazy. Such perverse conclusions, by opponents, are expected and serve only to further undermine their quickly eroding credibility. Successful capital prosecutions have nothing to do with the race of the victim or of the defendant and everything to do with the nature of the crimes. The most thorough evaluation of this subject was presented in McCleskey vs. Georgia wherein Federal District Judge, Owen Forester, accurately found that "the best models which Baldus was able to devise...produce no statically significant evidence that race plays a part in either.
Should we balance the scales of justice and execute equally the killer of blacks and whites? Only if you wish to increase the number of black murderers executed. 93% of all black murder victims are murdered by blacks. The overwhelming majority of black on black murders have
Against the Death Penalty "Murder is wrong" ("Capital Punishment"). We've been taught this indisputable truth since childhood. The death penalty is defined as one human taking the life of another. Coincidentally, that is a classification of murder. 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...show more content...
Another flaw is it is morally wrong. No matter how people sugar–coat it, murder is murder, in the name of justice or in vengeance it is morally wrong. Everyone deserves to live, no matter their circumstances are. Federal states should not be allowed to decide who lives and who dies, especially in a country such as the United States, which prides its self on freedom ("Top Ten"). Moreover, the death penalty is applied at random ("Facts"). "The death penalty is a lethal lottery: of the 15,000 to 17,000 homicides committed every year in the United States, approximately 120 people are sentenced to death, less than 1%" ("Facts"). Many criminals have committed the same crimes, but few have been sentenced to death for their crimes. In Addition, there is a chance mentally ill citizens could be convicted to death ("Facts"). According to Amnesty International and the National Association on Mental Illness, One out of every ten persons who has been executed in the United States since 1977 is mentally ill. "Many mentally ill defendants are unable to participate in their trials in any meaningful way and appear unengaged, cold, and unfeeling before the jury" ("Facts"). Many mentally ill defendants have been drugged against their will in order for them to be competent enough to be executed ("Facts"). Some states still haven't put a ban on executing mentally ill people such as Organ, although the United States Supreme Court has declared that Get more content
Capital punishment has been a cause for debate for many years, and people continue to disagree on the topic. There are many reasons why the death penalty should be used, but the three most important are that it deters potential murderers from committing crimes, it saves our government money in the long run, and most importantly, it guarantees that these convicted murderers will not kill again. Why does the United States need capital punishment? The main purpose of the death penalty is to protect the rights of other Americans to live. In his book, The Law, Federic Bastiat writes, "humans have inalienable rights that existed outside of and before government. These rights are life, liberty, and property. The only legitimate purpose of...show more content...
If we fail to execute murderers, and in so doing would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call"(Pro–death penalty.com). The death penalty also saves the government money in the long run. A trial for a capital case (which is a case of first–degree murder) is already time consuming and expensive. This type of case usually takes around six weeks and constitutes between 3,000 and 5,000 pages of court records. When a convicted killer is given life without parole, the appeals made by attorneys on both sides, as well as appeals by the court and the judges involved, add up to millions of dollars our government wastes every year, not to mention money for the convicted murderer's food and clothing, etc.(Jacobs, Landes, and Siegel). Lastly, I feel that capital punishment is the only way of making sure that a murderer will not kill again. Many people refute this argument by saying, "Well, what about life inprison without parole? Doesn't that do the same thing?" Sadly, most convicted murderers are not given life prison terms, especially with their first murder. The average prison sentence for murder is less than six years!(Jacobs, Landes, and Siegel) The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in
Get more content
Opinion on the Death Penalty
The death penalty, also referred to as capital punishment, has been abolished in Canada since 1976, but still exist in a few American States. The last execution in Canada took place in 1962.
I disagree with the death penalty for several reasons. My first reason is that I find it extremely inhumane to take someone's life in order to demonstrate the power of the law. Another reason for my disapproval of the death penalty, is the amount of money that it takes to put someone to death, as it would cost the same to keep an inmate in jail for life, as it would to put that same inmate to death. My third and final reason, is the guilty conscience that is placed on everyone involved: the jury who convicted...show more content... Therefore, I do not feel that Canada should permit such a deplorable undertaking of a human life. I know they must be punished, but there is a better way.
Prior to putting someone to death, the accused's lawyer will attempt several appeals to the courts in order to lengthen the amount of time he has to live; and dependent on a technicality, or a sympathetic jury, the accused may be sentenced to life imprisonment. These appeals take up an abundance of court time and cost the public millions of dollars. With the cost of these appeals, it would cost the same amount to keep the same inmate in jail for a life term. Would it not be better for the inmate to perhaps obtain an education or be given the chance to rehabilitate, rather than strapped to a chair and killed ??? I personally would rather see the inmate suffer in prison and have nothing to look forward to rather than letting the government put him out of his misery by killing him. To sentence someone to death takes one trial but to actually get some one in the chair to kill them could take a dozen of trials. The question must be asked why do we bother with this lengthy and costly process when we could sentence people to life in prison, at the same cost.
The killing of a human being is very traumatizing to all. Whenever the courts issue someone to death, the innocent everyday people who are involved must be affected. Just imagine how these normal human beings, like you and I,
The death penalty, also known as capital punishment is a legal procedure in which a state executes a person for crimes he/she has committed. This punishment has been implemented by many states, and is normally used for atrocious crimes, especially murder. It is also used on crimes against the state such as treason, crimes against humanity, espionage, and violent crimes while other states use it as part of military justice. There are mixed reactions on capital punishment depending on one's faith, and the state they come from. In my view, I am not in favor of death penalty, as I strongly believe that, death penalty is unacceptable and an inhumane practice for it denies one the right to live. Death penalty does not deter crime, it is an act...show more content...
Even though supporters argue that death penalty is a relief to the family of a person who was murdered by the convicted criminal; it is not true, their pain cannot be healed through the retribution or vengeance by death penalty. Therefore, killing a criminal cannot overcome a crime nor bring back the life of the person who was killed by the person convicted of murder.
Death penalty sends a bad message to the society. The people in the society are made to believe that human life has no value, and when one commits a heinous crime like murder, they deserve to die. This is a bad message to the society because, the society should be taught to respect each others life and that every individual has a right to life. A humane society does not kill or support the killing of their fellow human beings, therefore, capital punishment is a violent homicide that teaches the society the permissibility of killing in order to solve social issues, and this is a bad sign. Hence, death penalty should not be allowed because it is the worst example to the society.
Death penalty should be scrapped because it can lead to the execution of innocent people. The justice system is bound to make mistakes and so, the accused people should be given a chance to appeal, and prove their innocence other than being murdered because of mistakes made by judges. There are many cases whereby individuals are imprisoned and
Get more content