Category: Death Penalty

The Death Penalty: Outdated And Ineffective Punishment

The topic of the death penalty is one that is usually debated and heavily frowned upon. It is debated all over the world in numerous countries. Most Americans have a very strong stance about the death penalty no matter what side they are on. Supporters of this punishment argue that it serves as a deterrent to crime and that justice is being served. My personal stance on the death penalty is that it is an outdated and noneffective punishment, having no benefit to society and causing more harm than good to society as a whole.

We can observe that, in the United States, a lot of people still carry out these violations, knowing that the death penalty exists. When someone commits a crime they usually don’t think about the death penalty and cause them to adjust their conduct. The outcomes of their crimes are not at the front line of their minds while they’re committing those crimes. We can see this in the increasing number of committed crimes, a seemingly endless amount of time after a year in America.

There have also been wrongly sentenced people, who were either killed or were anticipating their punishment, even though they were innocent. In situations where capital punishment had just been done, it was past the point of no return for those innocent people. Furthermore, in situations where innocence was found, later on, we must be grateful that it didn’t get to the death penalty. There are instances of people being wrongly charged and for each case that is uncovered, we should remember that there is likely more that we’ve never find out about. Having even one guiltless individual killed wrongly is wrong by itself.

We should also look at the psychological skill of the people being committed and condemned to this discipline. On the off chance that a person isn’t mentally right for preparing and understanding the crimes they have committed, it is morally wrong to execute them for this. Looking at the morals of the death penalty, it’s additionally unfair and unjust discipline. There have been ways to establish capital punishment meant to punish the person. The main people who can witness their crimes being executed. We can’t say for certain whether somebody cruelly punished while they were being executed, hoping a guarantee of a fast and effortless demise. Also, there are people who will face death set apart by torment and making sure justice is being served in America. Yet, as we attempt to hold ourselves as a country to a better quality than our most dangerous criminals, allow our justice system to work like it was intended to, as said by the Supreme Court. And, at no point has the Supreme Court at any point agreed with the cruel and inhumane death penalty. We might want to imagine that we have more faith in humankind than those people committing the crimes. In a way, we are denying another person but also sinking down to their level.

Death Penalty As A Very Good Deterrence

One of the most lethal and last punishments in life is the Death Penalty. Death is the only thing that everyone fears. Death is a silent killer that waits for nobody. Every criminal fears this sentence. The Death Penalty is one of those laws that sits there and waits for its next victim. I believe that the penalty should not be allowed in any state across the country. Everyone has the right to live even if they must life 100 years inside of four walls.

The Death Penalty, also known as capital punishment, was very first introduced and brought over from Europe, specifically Great Britain. Hanging and executions became a usual method of death when someone committed a crime. You could get executed or hanged from stealing, all the way up to cutting a tree down. Since it was so popular and common, most people didn’t care what the crime was and just decided to hang anybody who did something wrong. This problem lead to many reforms and decisions to change this law and get rid of it. Around 1823 to 1837, capital punishment was disposed of, but just because it was eliminated they did not stop and they wanted to spread the idea of it.

When the European settlers arrived here at the new world, they drove the idea of the Death penalty in most areas. The first documented execution during the new colonies was George Kendall in Jamestown Virginia, 1608. He was executed for being an undercover agent for the Spaniards. During 1612, the overseer of Virginia, Sir Thomas Dale, added and compelled Moral and Martial Laws.

These laws gave capital punishment the ability to be implemented towards minor and very small crimes, just like how it was in early Europe. At this time the death penalty was diverse and different in each colony. The colony located in New York applied the death penalty for those who would hit their mother or father and for those who did not believe in “True God”.

Fast forwarding to 1972, a case involving the death penalty went to the supreme court. Everyone started to argue that it was cruel. The Furman v. Georgia case fortunately brought a brief end to the death penalty. The supreme court resolved the case by overturning Furman’s death sentence because it disagreed with the 8th amendment. Unfortunately, the death penalty was brought back for the execution of Gary Gillmore in 1977. After that it continued to be alive, but slowly began to die. It still remains in America even till this day.

Although the death penalty is allowed in over 30 states, it has its limitations. For instance, they cannot execute the mentally ill and they are not suppose the kill juveniles. The United States have evolved in ways to execute those on capital punishment. Many of them being lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, and firing squads. In my opinion these are ridiculous and inhumane ways to kill somebody. Those whose who are pro capital punishment believe that the death penalty is a very good deterrence, which means that they believe it’s a very good scaring tactic for those who commit crime. I somewhat agree with this statement, but for the most part it is not. The reason why it’s not a good deterrence is because logically offenders will realize that all they have to do is not get caught. No one would commit any murders or anything like that. They would continue to do other extreme crimes are commit murder but on a low key level.

Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime Essay

The debate over whether the death penalty should be abolished or not is one of the top long-lasting and perfervid debated topics in the world. Some support the ‘ eye for an eye ‘ or ‘ life for life ‘ philosophy, while others believe that sanctioned death is wrong.

Humans are meant to live by following some rules and regulations. Breaking those rules is subject to punishment. The seriousness of the crime determines the degree of punishment. Since time immemorial, the concept of the death penalty has been used as a form of cruel punishment. Criminal acts and punishment have a profound impact on culture and civilization as they emerge from them. The death penalty, which is a form of capital punishment, has been used since the beginning of civilization on this globe. With the advancement of civilization, the methods of capital punishment have undergone tremendous humanized changes.

Many people believe that capital punishment is a violation of human rights. More than 70% of countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, either legally or in practice. But, the practice exists in various parts of the world, particularly in countries with larger populations and authoritarian governments. Because it is believed on the other side that the practice of the death penalty not only deters future crimes but also makes someone think twice about committing a fatal crime. However, the death penalty is a terrible reality that demonstrates that the world is filled with criminals and illegal activity.

Many ancient civilizations and tribal methods feature the death penalty as a part of their judicial systems. With tribal societies becoming social classes and the development of self-governed republics, the death penalty became a regular response to a range of crimes, including sexual assault, treason, and different military offenses. Written rules were developed to make people aware of the risks of indulging in any of these crimes and the first established death penalty rules can be found in King Hammurabi of Babylon’s Code, which codified the death sentence for 25 different crimes in the Eighteenth Century B.C.

During the 20th century, millions of people were killed in battles between nations or states. Military systems used execution punishment as a way of maintaining discipline during this turbulent period. In many religious beliefs, the death penalty was being used for crimes, and it was practiced with the support of religious leaders. Today, the morality of capital punishment is no longer associated with any particular faith. The punishment has been left up to the discretion of the judicial system.

Timeline

• 1929 – The 1929 Geneva Convention was the first international treaty to restrict the death penalty, limiting it to prisoners of war taken during armed conflict.
• 1948 – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes a ‘right to life,’ was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.
• 1966 – Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was adopted in 1966, is the most important treaty provision dealing with the death sentence at the international level. The ICCPR encourages nations to work towards the total elimination of the death sentence. However, it does not make the abolition of the death penalty mandatory.
• 1984 – The UN Economic and Social Council adopted safeguards that ensure that persons facing the death penalty have their rights protected.
• 1989 – The UN General Assembly adopted the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR that giving abolition decisive new momentum.
• 1999 – Resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Commission Supporting a Worldwide Moratorium on Executions.
• 2007 – A resolution proposing a moratorium on capital punishment was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

To date, the death penalty has been treated in accordance with international standards and rules safeguarding the right to life. Meanwhile, it has also been recognized as a legal sanction under international law under certain circumstances. Therefore it is to be noted that international law strongly advocates, but does not mandate or prohibit the abolition of the death sentence.

Statistical Analysis

1. The number of abolitionist countries of the death penalty (1945- 2020)

The graph demonstrates the number of abolitionist countries which have abolished the death penalty had been steadily increased from, 7 in 1945 to 108 in 2020. This trend clearly indicates that the world is at a tipping point to abolishing the death penalty. However, it is to be noted that there are a number 44 retentionist countries as of 2020.

2. Recorded global executions (2011- 2020)

The above graph demonstrates the globally recorded executions from 2011 to 2020. This implicates the death penalty is on its way out, as the number of executions has significantly fallen over the past decade. Concerns about human rights, discrimination, potential unjust convictions, and its effectiveness as a deterrent are some of the factors driving this significant decline.

Points For:

• Deterrence – Various studies have shown that the death penalty has no influence on violent crime rates and does not work as an effective deterrent. For example, the states in the U.S with the most executions also have the highest murder rates, which is very ironic. As a result, the death penalty appears inefficient for the purpose for which it was introduced.
• Retribution – The concept of retribution is ambiguous and it is merely a kind of the misguided belief that two wrongs can make a right. The most prevalent argument is that innocent people may be killed sooner or later by the death penalty as a result of the flaws or defects in the judicial system.
• Rehabilitation – The death penalty simply takes away a criminal’s right to seek rehabilitation. It eliminates the possibility of a non-habitual offender seeking an opportunity to change his or her behaviors. It is assumed that there is nothing that can be done about an offender who is just violating his or her rights.

Points Against:

• Deterrence – The death penalty acts as the most effective deterrent when it comes to deterring people from committing the most heinous acts. If offenders are sentenced to death and executed, it would prevent the would-be criminals from attempting the crime in fear of losing their own life. If for no other reason, at least as a deterrent for other potential criminals, we still need the death penalty.
• Retribution – The death penalty provides retribution for offenders and ensures that they are held accountable for their actions. For example, if we take an act of murder, it would be difficult to make murderers pay properly for their crime without the death penalty, because no punishment other than death truly correlates to the crime of murder.
• Rehabilitation – Some offenders are simply beyond help and will always pose a serious threat to society. The only choice left for these offenders who have lost all chance of forgiveness is to eliminate them from existence and not rehabilitation.

It is also suggested to research other perspectives such as cost-effectiveness, fail-safe justice system and historical recognition, etc.

The Death Penalty Is a Step Back: Persuasive Essay

The straps tighten against you as you draw your final breath. There is blood to pay for the price of the crime, but this fictitious murderer has been wrongfully accused. You are painfully innocent. The pressure of all the people holding you down is suffocating. The needle is injected; this is not justice neither is it mercy. This is cruelty. The death penalty is not the way to give redemption to those of lost loved ones, this is because it is killing hundreds of people left and right, the innocent dying leaving their blood on our hands, and piling expenses; it needs to be abolished.

Crazy as it is, the death penalty has been around since the 1630s in the U.S. Various people state if it served justness all the way in that era, it must at this time and age too. It has never failed to do its role; that is true. It has never failed to kill hundreds of people. A report about the history of this questionable punishment system by the Constitutional Right Foundation promotes, “…the death penalty was imposed for many crimes, even minor ones such as picking pockets or stealing a loaf of bread. (“History of Death Penalty”)” This supports how extensive the executions were with the cry for blood over morality. Our foundation wasn’t even built on the principle of “an eye for an eye!” If this continues we may not be able to foresee our thirst for vengeance getting to us. The official Death Penalty Information Center stated, “1,526 men and women have been executed in the United States since the 1970s…(“Executions Overview”)” This is only accounting from the 1970s to today, the numbers are more massive than the accounts. Multitudinous have died that could’ve had the chance to live. If you ponder about it, when we kill a murderer through this system we are doing the same action that was trying to be prevented. As a matter of fact, laws are here to provide safety and control; but there is inconsequential safety in allowing your neighbor to legally kill someone. Not surprisingly, violence isn’t always the solution; most of the time it’s never the ethical or moral solution. An article by Pamela Paul takes insight on this issue opinionating :

The Harris polls also asked whether capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. Americans’ belief that the death penalty serves as a disincentive is waning – falling to 42 percent in July 2001, from 59 percent in 1976. Surprisingly, the diminishing belief that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to crime is not accompanied by decreasing support for the death penalty. In fact, between 1976 and 1997, belief in capital punishment as a deterrent fell 10 percentage points, while support for the death penalty rose 8 points (uncertainty fell as well, from 8 percent to 3 percent of respondents). This indicates that lowering the murder rate may not be Americans’ primary motive in supporting executions. (Paul 22)

Deterrent means to discourage someone or an event from taking place; the polls showed how many felt that the homicide penalty no longer served as a system with its original purpose. Despite all odds, the numbers are rising, executions with dates set in place, we need to abolish it before it is too late to save them and our morality.

Unfortunately, there is not only worry about the number of executions but also the people being executed as well. Notably, several have contended that we are not only delivering their justice but that it also consoles the victim’s loved ones. The act of retribution has been highly debated and a crippling statement has been made by Samuel Gross from DPIC with the uncomfortable news to those who believe that; he testifies, “There is no real doubt that we have an innocent person. If we could go to trial on this case if there was a forum where we could take this to trial, we would win hands down” (“Innocence”). This was stated after the execution of Larry Griffin, the executed man was killed for crimes he did not commit; only to be discovered when the deed had done its damage. Another story of the innocent being wronged is of Walter McMillian. This man was once again falsely accused of murder and almost went to the grave to meet his maker. The book Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption, by Byran Stevenson (DPIC “Books”), elaborates on this incident and the injustice that was served by those courts. Killing murderers is one step in the fallacious direction, but to still stand and permit innocent people to die after hearing about the wrongly accused is choosing to be ignorant. To highlight the innocents, the DPIC belabored after looking into multiple like those two scenarios :

It is now clear that innocent defendants will be convicted and sentenced to death with some regularity as long as the death penalty exists. It is unlikely that the appeals process—which is mainly focused on legal errors and not on factual determinations—will catch all the mistakes. Reforms have been begrudgingly implemented, increasing both the costs and the time that the death penalty consumes, but have not been sufficient to overcome human error. The popularity and use of capital punishment have rapidly declined as the innocence issue has gained attention. The remaining question is how many innocent lives are worth sacrificing to preserve this punishment. (“Innocence”)

That is the question. How long are we willing to let this continue until we add mercy to our laws? If this system hadn’t been here, innocent men and women could still be breathing. But now we have committed the crime.

Lastly, one of the major towering factors in abolishing the death penalty is the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars are going down the drain for the accused. Too many people overlook this with a blind eye, struck with the thought of redemption. There is a simpler solution though, to this system that Feminism and Non-Violence have produced :

…life imprisonment with no parole. Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials. Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity for two trials–one on guilt and one on sentencing–make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeals process begins. Guilty pleas are almost unheard of when the punishment is death. In addition, many of these trials result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the cost of life imprisonment on top of the expensive trial. (Dieter 11)

If you could not follow along, lots of these cases have a complex system to determine the innocent and guilty. This still takes thousands of dollars which is unnecessary. An account recorded and studied by the DPIC announced :

In a series of articles analyzing Pennsylvania’s death penalty, the Reading Eagle found that taxpayers have spent over $350 million on the death penalty over a period in which the state has carried out just three executions, all of the inmates who dropped their appeals. (“Costs”)

Wrap your head around that! Three people totaled over 350 million dollars! In New York, they did a study on the cities with the death penalty and cities without it in the state, and see what the FNSA published :

Significantly, no city in New York State, without the death penalty is among the nation’s top twenty-five cities in homicide rates. This is based on the statistics recently released by the FBI. In particular, New York City bucked the national trend and experienced a decline in every major category of crime in 1991. In the first four months of 1992, crime was again down across the board in New York, compared to the same period two years previous, with murders decreasing by over U percent. While direct causes for a decrease in crime are difficult to pinpoint, many experts have attributed New York’s success to an increasingly popular concept known as community policing. In 1990, New York had 750-foot officers on the street. In 1992, that number was 3,000. Community policing is a strategy for utilizing police officers not just as people who react to crime, but also as people who solve problems by becoming an integral part of the neighborhoods they serve. (Dieter 11)

As a solution to this extensive and expensive crisis, more security was enforced compared to endless executions. As we see in NY when we guide our efforts into securing the city through more police force, we can see significantly lower crime rates.

Wrapping all of this up, DPIC in its Gallup surveys discovered, “Record-Low Percentage of Americans Now Find Death Penalty Morally Acceptable” (“Public Opinion”), people are starting to realize that the death penalty is wrong. If they are starting to see veracity then you can as well. If there is anything that I yearn that you do not forget all of the people fighting for their lives. An inmate shares his divulgence while being on death row as an innocent :

I miss the stars. You know, I haven’t seen the stars in years and years and years. I miss the rain. I miss food. I miss all these things. But what it comes down to the most — and this is the thing that will scar me the most and that I’ll car­ry with me as a scar the longest — the thing I miss the most is being treat­ed like a human being. (DPIC “Conditions on the Death Row”)

I can’t express or force you to see the death penalty as I do. All I can urge is that we limit our deaths, those convicted, and expenses by getting rid of this system. I aspire that we all can show mercy and stay true to our humanity.

Works Cited

1. CRF. “History of Death Penalty in America.” Constitutional Right Foundation. CRF, 2012.
2. 30 Sept. 2020. Web.
3. Dieter, Richard C. “What politicians don’t say about the high costs of the death penalty.”
4. Studies in Prolife Feminism, vol. 1, no. 1, Winter 1995, p. 11+. Gale General OneFile. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020. Print.
5. DPIC. “Death Penalty Information Center.” Death Penalty Information Center. DPIC, 15 Sept. 2020. 30 Sept. 2020. Web.
6. Paul, Pamela. “The Death Penalty.” American Demographics, 1 Nov. 2001, p. 22. Gale General
7. OneFile. Accessed 24 Sept. 2020. Print.

How The Death Penalty Saves Lives: Persuasive Essay

The dying penalty has been used for years as a way to punish the guilty. Over the years the loss of life penalty has valued our Justice device millions. Besides the cost, it violates our Human Rights Bill and punishes harmless people. The demise penalty is now not fantastic at decreasing crime. Our society is not any safer and does now not deter people from breaking the law. There are many one-of-a-kind alternatives in our machine to battle crime, however, the demise penalty is not one of them.

The loss of life penalty is supposed to prevent others from killing however it does not. According to the ‘Death Penalty Information Center the top tutorial criminological societies, 88% of these specialists rejected the thinking that the loss of life penalty acts as a deterrent to murder.’ Fear of the demise penalty has little effect on people committing murder. A murder usually starts, as an argument long past awful when the individual is angry. The common person does not stroll outdoors and says, ‘I assume I will kill today’. No one makes the dying penalty their first notion when they go away from the house. It by no means crosses people’s minds: if they kill a person, they will get the dying penalty. People are nevertheless killing and it has now not slowed down the number of homicide instances in the US. If the dying penalty is sending a message, unfortunately, no one is listening to the message.

Second, the dying penalty is valued more for execution versus existence in prison. Our use spends millions to execute prisoners versus leaving them in prison. Our USA is having a financial disaster however it looks like we have thousands and thousands of greenbacks for the demise penalty. According to ‘Death Penalty Information Center ‘California spends it cost $232.7 million per year. A prisoner can spend life barring parole price of $90,000 a yr per inmate.’ We spend a massive quantity on a machine that has little impact on crime.

Third, the dying penalty goes against our Human Rights Bill. On December 10, 1948, United Nations adopted the Human Rights Bill. Article 5 states that ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading therapy or punishment’. The death penalty is heartless to human beings and merciless punishment. We say do not kill, however, we are doing the identical thing. A structure in which human lifestyles are being taken by means of execution is merciless. Many prisoners reform while they are in prison. Criminals have dedicated some unspeakable crimes, however, they do now not deserve to have their lifestyles end. The US has modified the means of the Human Rights Bill to justify our system settling of ratings in opposition to another. In 1986, forty-eight international locations has abolish the dying penalty.

Fourth, the death penalty has completed humans who are now not guilty. If we proceed with the Death penalty, not responsible humans will die. According to the Dying Penalty Information Center ‘Since 1973, over one hundred thirty humans have been released from demise row with evidence of their innocence. From 2000-2007, there has been a common of 5 exonerations per year. The trouble with the dying penalty is that innocent human beings are killed. The device makes errors and does not usually have evidence when convicting people. Many prisoners spend years serving time for a crime they did now not do. There is no justice for them or their families. The Justice system no longer questions how many not responsible have died. We can punish them stop other ways barring the demise penalty.

They argue that the death penalty executes those that are guilty. Capital punishment takes many steps to assure that fewer errors are made. In support of their aspect criminals certainly get a truthful trial in the prison system. Our device assures that lives will be saved via execution, simply the opposite there is little evidence to show that the demise penalty saves lives.

Retribution for a crime potential the justice machine is going to get even for the crime you committed. Retribution is a cruel way for our justice machine to justify what they are doing. Taking the existence of the humans who have been killed, we are doing the same crime. Killing the criminal is no longer going to deliver back the victim. We justified it with the aid of pronouncing it will bring closer to the victims’ families. The victim’s household heals no faster than they did while the prisoner was once in jail. They will grieve the same way in the same amount of time. The device is adding homicide on top of homicide there is no stop to crime. The cycle goes on and does no longer give up and the complete purpose is the quit murder. At some point, the system has to face reality and find every other way that works. Criminals carry out murder it is the lowest form of crime and the system does the equal element however it receives a fancier name.

Despite the claim that capital punishment can serve as a way to cease criminals. Showing would-be criminals the consequences of their actions. There is a regulation and justice gadget and you have followed it. The death penalty makes humans think earlier than doing a crime but it is simply the opposite.

All matters consider the justice system is morally wrong when it comes to the loss of life penalty. The cost to execute a man or woman is greater steeply-priced than life in jail except for parole. Knowing that innocent humans will be executed is a heartless way of punishment. We ought to focal point more on how to give up and forestall crime.

Arguments against Death Penalty: Research Paper

Can Capital Punishment Ever Be Justified?

As indicated by the eighth amendment in the United States Constitution, each American resident is shielded from unfeeling and uncommon discipline in the criminal equity framework. Since forever, there have been many court cases that have ruled in support of capital punishment, yet the issue of whether the death penalty is ethically just or not is still discussed today (Cole et al. 92, 289). As a criminal equity understudy, I see capital punishment as an effective and moral type of discipline because it discourages residents and keeps lawbreakers from carrying out brutal acts, is an incredibly shabby money-related technique for rebuffing hoodlums that avows upright life, and gives retaliation to exploited people and their families.

A contention against the death penalty, initially invalidated by Edward Koch, is that it is the deceptive, deliberate, government affirmed, murder of an individual, in a general public that condemns the taking of human life (standard. 13). An opposer of capital punishment on this contentious stage could reference the Supreme Court instance of Furman v. Georgia. This re-appraising case had the capacity to annul capital punishment in 1972, with the contention that every single present technique for execution, for example, hanging, electric shock, and the gas chamber, were types of savage and surprising discipline (Cole et al. 290). This view is reasonable, however, neglects to understand that the legislature has distinctive rights contrasted with individual natives. Via capital punishment sentences, the administration effectively keeps genuine guilty parties from regularly executing again and cautions natives that they may get a similar discipline in the event that they ever perpetrate merciless wrongdoings.

The approval of capital punishment isn’t killing, since it’s anything but a brutal and improper act, and it is performed in the best positive interests of society. In Edward Koch’s article, ‘Demise and Justice,’ (standard. 10) he brings up that numerous individuals banter that the seizure of any life ruins the estimation of life itself, and no cost ought to be put on it. In any case, others, similar to Koch and myself, contend that financing the prosperity and sustenance of sentenced executioners is considerably more decreasing and offensive to the nature of human life, than if such beasts were simply killed. One rotten one can ruin the entire bundle; by enabling killers to live in a similar world as ethically noble individuals, we upset the general potential we have as a human race to accomplish edification and guarantee positive situations for who and what is to come. As indicated by a 2012 overview from the Vera Institute of Justice, holding one criminal in jail costs citizens a normal $31,286 per year (Henrichson 9).

After that sum is increased by the number of unsafe prisoners serving life sentences, it is financially consistent to utilize the death penalty in the framework of the revision, which just costs citizens $86.08 per deadly infusion (Hall). In what capacity can the groups of exploited people live serene lives, realizing that their duty cash is being utilized to give a solid, agreeable, and long life for the individual who killed and striped their cherished one of human nobility, as opposed to being spent to serve revenge to such appalling hoodlums? One of the fundamental objectives of discipline in the criminal equity framework is reprisal, which implies a level of discipline is requested by the seriousness of the wrongdoing. A few unfortunate casualties don’t concur that the ‘tit for tat’ outlook can be ethically defended, as per their religion or profound models (Cole et al. 277). Koch reports that profoundly based contentions much of the time reference the Ten Commandments and lessons of Jesus in the Bible (standard. 12).

In their exposition ‘Scriptural Perspectives on the Death Penalty,’ Westmoreland-White and Stassen pronounce that The Sixth Commandment has been deciphered as ‘Thou shalt not execute,’ just as ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ in various dialects. This error ends up being ‘risky’ for the two sides of religious contentions in light of the fact that Westmoreland-White and Stassen assess that the ‘first [context of The Sixth Commandment] neither requests nor restricts capital punishment'(126). Direct scriptural idioms from Jesus Christ, for example, ‘for all who draw the sword will kick the bucket by the sword,’ and ‘love your foes and appeal to God for your persecutors,’ (Matthew 26:52, 5:44) are amazing proclamations used to contend that people should ‘break out of cycles of [rivalry, envy, sharpness, contempt, and violence]’ in light of the fact that God will legitimately ‘[give] downpour and daylight’ to every person, as per his activities (Westmoreland-White and Stassen 133,135). Religious backers and opposers of capital punishment will, in general, contend explicit statements of The Bible to support them, however all through their paper, Westmoreland-White, and Stassen repeat the verifiable truth that Jesus’ lessons and scriptural refrains ought to be deciphered as ethically coordinating ‘proverb[s],’ not as strict ‘law[s]’ (127).

To set up a systematic lawful framework that capacities with lucidity, our establishing fathers composed the Declaration of Independence, in which a rule for the production of laws in America was installed, that enables residents to voice their feelings and work to refresh rules over the long haul: Governments are initiated among Men, getting their equitable forces from the assent of the represented, – That at whatever point any Form of Government winds up damaging of these closures, it is the Right of the People to modify or to cancel it, and to establish new Government, establishing its framework on such standards and Skomer 3 arranging its forces in such structure, as to them will appear to be well on the way to impact their Safety and Happiness. (US of America) Because of this provision, numerous Supreme Court redrafting cases since the beginning have been discussed and set up benchmarks that legitimize capital punishment and maintain residents’ rights. Numerous present contentions against the death penalty, such as Bright’s, give instances of obsolete capital punishment cases that have condemned ‘children,…mentally sick,’ and self-spoke to litigants to death (175). Since 1963 when Gideon v. Wainwright built up that all litigants are ensured counsel when they deal with genuine indictments, respondents have not been permitted to speak to themselves.

This foundation guarantees that angry or rationally sick litigants won’t be executed in light of the fact that they couldn’t appropriately speak to themselves. In 2002 and 2005, the Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons cases prohibited the execution of rationally sick or formatively incapacitated wrongdoers, just as guilty parties younger than 18. Mainly, the 1976 Gregg v. Georgia case decided that capital punishment, executed by deadly infusion, was a legal approval since it necessitated that respondents confronting the death penalty must be offered the chance to claim whenever amid the court procedure, their cases must be part into preliminary and condemning stages, and both alleviating and exasperating components adding to the litigant’s blame or blamelessness must be introduced amid preliminary (Cole et al. 95, 290, 291). This case administering secures residents’ Constitutional rights and builds up rules against capital punishment that guarantees the maintenance of every litigant’s poise all through the revisions procedure.

The death penalty prerequisites sketched out by The Supreme Court enable exploited people and their families to realize that equity was served for the abominable violations carried out against them, and soothes groups of any blame, realizing that the criminal was rebuffed others consciously and decently. Regardless of all the contradicting contentions that condemn the death penalty, society can’t neglect the way that by executing unsafe killers, we make it inconceivable for pitiless individuals to ever carry out rough violations again. Regardless of what an individual’s otherworldly category is, the person can’t deny that capital punishment is the main other’s conscious path for requital to enough be served to lethal hoodlums. Rather than endeavoring to execute new laws dependent on equivocal religious sacred writings, otherworldly rivals should initially be educated on the considerable number of principles set up by Supreme Court cases that clear up how the death penalty maintains all human and American rights. It is verifiable that capital punishment is less expensive than imprisoning threatening natives for life, and by executing such misleading individuals, we improve the quality and estimation of life for society. As American residents, we ought to welcome that the changes in the Constitution ensure rights and security for every single native, and capital punishment attempts to maintain the American Constitutional establishment of freedom and equity for all.

What Will Doom the Death Penalty: Persuasive Essay

Nobody has control over death. The death penalty, often known as capital punishment, was imposed on a person who was deemed unfit to live by the state as a punishment for his horrific actions. Since the beginning of the Spanish era, during the Martial Law period, and during Fidel Ramos and Estrada’s time in the country, the death sentence has been in place (A timeline of the death penalty in the Philippines). Because the Philippines’ legal system is flawed and incompatible with Catholic teachings, the death sentence should not be enforced.

Because the Philippines’ court system is flawed, the death penalty should not be adopted. The Philippines’ legal system is extremely slow, and the due process of a case is ineffective in the country since it takes too long to resolve, with most cases taking years to resolve. The delays prolong criminal cases, causing them to stagnate and fail to be resolved. There are also too many flaws in the system, such as ineffective counsel representing the defendant, insufficient or missing evidence, and untrustworthy witnesses. If the capital penalty were implemented in the country, the majority of instances would result in innocent people being falsely convicted.

Authority, money, influence, and fraud could sway the judicial system in the Philippines. Due to the rich and powerful men influencing the decision of the case, it does not even matter if the accused is truly guilty of the crime or innocent because the end result will be based on their choice. The case would then be manipulated through forged evidence, false witnesses, or forced confessions. The judge would then have to incriminate the accused man for his alleged crime. This leads innocent people to die without having the chance of parole and their freedom (Wrongful Conviction in the Philippines).

The Philippines’ legal system could be swayed by power, money, persuasion, and fraud. It doesn’t matter if the accused is actually guilty of the crime or innocent because the end result will be determined by their choice because of the affluent and powerful guys influencing the case judgment. Forged evidence, fraudulent witnesses, and forced confessions would then be used to manipulate the case. After then, the judge would have to convict the accused guy for his purported offense. Innocent individuals die as a result of this, with no prospect of parole or release (Wrongful Conviction in the Philippines).

The Republic Act No. 7659 states that a criminal who has been proven guilty of a heinous crime with proper due process of the law will be executed. This law will protect the defendant whether he is guilty or not to have the freedom to testify and prove his innocence. Careful deliberation is taken when determining a criminal’s case before imposing the death penalty. The decision of the Supreme Court cannot happen instantly because there are many factors to prove if the man is guilty and deserves the death penalty.

Overpopulation in Prisons and Death Penalty: Analytical Essay

The death penalty has been around for over 4,000 years, demonstrating that virtually all human civilizations have practiced it. The criminal justice system has continued to apply this punishment to criminal offenders involved in significant offenses such as murder and robbery with violence. Nonetheless, there is continued opposition to applying the death penalty by the human rights bodies who view it as a violation of the right to life. Hence, the need for the criminal justice system in all countries to cease applying it. This essay will explain some advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty.

To commence with, the death penalty helps in the absolute deterrence of a crime. It helps to deter the recurrence of a crime permanently. The criminal is killed in whichever form prescribed in the judgment, which demonstrates that such a person cannot go back into society and continue to commit crimes. This method of dealing with criminals is for keeping society’s safety and stability. It is better to prevent the occurrence of a crime as opposed to waiting for its materialization and beginning to pursue the criminals through the court processes as this is not only time-consuming but also puts the safety of the innocent members of society at risk. Criminal behavior is contagious and as such, it is important for the perpetrators to be put behind bars before their bad influence spreads to other people through the social learning theory. Any measure that has the capacity to fight the prevalence of crime in society should thus be pursued and supported at all costs as long as it is not in violation of human rights and the fundamental freedoms of the people.

In addition, it also plays an important role in decongesting prison facilities. In most countries, prison camps continue to be flooded, which is disastrous to the management of such facilities due to the health risks involved. With the death penalty, the criminals are killed, meaning that they will not have to be kept in prison facilities. The approach is imperative as it helps in reducing the number of people held in prisons. Congestion in prisons also poses a severe health hazard to the inmates and this in turn increases the medical costs that are incurred by the government. The decongestion of such incarceration facilities is thus beneficial to even the prisoners themselves.

However, the death penalty is regarded as a blatant violation of the right to life, which is inalienable by all assessment standards. This means that all and sundry have a right to life, and as such, the criminal justice systems worldwide should desist or rather abolish the use of the death penalty henceforth. Killing people in the name of dispensing justice is not acceptable, given that other alternative forms of punishment can be pursued.

Lastly, the death penalty assumes that the criminal is beyond rehabilitation. This is a wrong notion or rather a misconception that should not be allowed to continue. The justice system’s primary purpose should be focused on reforming the offenders and taking them back into society as people who will henceforth live meaningful lives and not kill them based on administering justice.

In the final analysis, I am opposed to the practice of the death penalty. This is a constant violation of the fundamental human right to life and a complete negation of the rehabilitation system’s works. There is no justice in killing offenders since if this should be the case, then mob justice, which often results in the suspect’s death, should be legalized. There are alternative forms of punishment that can replace the death penalty, such as life imprisonment.

The death penalty should be opposed. This is not retributive justice but a blatant violation of the right to life which should be granted to all under all circumstances. The death penalty also negates the rehabilitation aspect which is at the heart of the criminal justice system. The criminals should be reformed and taken back to society instead of killing them. There are numerous alternative forms of punishments that can perfectly be applied in place of the death penalty to avoid murdering innocent people hence causing a miscarriage of justice.

An Eye for an Eye: Critical Essay on Death Penalty

Capital punishment means putting a person to death as a form of punishment for a crime they have committed against the state, for example, murder. No one has been executed in the United Kingdom since 1964.

The death penalty goes against the sanctity of life, the people carrying out the killing are going against God’s plan for the criminal’s life as they are ending their life before God had planned to. This is one of the reasons with the Catholic Church is against the idea as Catholics believe it is only God who is allowed to end life as he has a plan for everyone. Thurgood Marshall (Marshall,1993) supports the Catholic Church as he agrees that all taking of life, whether innocent or not, is morally wrong as it gives out a contradictory message that questions whether life is scary or not and denies wrongdoers dignity and worth.

However, it can be argued that people know exactly what they are doing, so they, therefore, deserve to forfeit their own lives as they themselves have gone against God’s rules and against human nature. Even the Bible states ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ Matthew (5:38-42) This means that the offender should have punishment for what they have done and should not be forgiven. St Thomas Aquinas argues that state execution is like self-defense and agrees with the Bible that those who offend should receive their punishment.

The Bible can also be seen to be against the use of the death penalty through the ten commandments. Within the commandment, humans are told ‘Do not kill’. The commandments are seen as fundamental laws which tell Catholics how they should live their lives, so by breaking one of the commandments the criminal is going against God and how He wants you to live. However, some may argue that this commandment ‘makes no direct reference to any other form of killing, such as … capital punishment.’ (Crook, 2002, pg.228)

Utilitarianism is a theory that looks for the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. ‘(Utilitarianism) treats punishment as an evil in itself but considers that it is justified by the greater good for the whole community that results from the punishment’ (Vardy&Grosch,1999, pg.183) In the case of the death penalty a ‘common and seemingly logical justification…is that executing this convicted murder will reduce the number of further murders.’ (Streib, 2013, pg.14) Therefore, Utilitarianism would argue for the death penalty for the greatest good that brings safety for most people. J.S Mill favors the death penalty as he argues that the criminal is removed from society and will therefore cause no greater harm. In his speech to parliament, he argues that ‘We partly know who those are whom it has not deterred; but who is there who knows whom it has deterred or how many human lives it has saved who would have lived to be murderers.’ (Thoma, 1981, pg.49-50) Mill also mentions that if we did not have the death penalty criminals will be able to re-offend and commit crimes against the innocent.

Those who argue for the use of the death penalty would say that it acts as a deterrent, to stop criminals from committing crimes again. However, there is no evidence to prove that is true as the figures vary between countries and do not prove it to be beneficial to crime rates. Sir Ian Percival MP argued in the House of Commons in 1987 that ‘it is a greater deterrent to those who can be deterred, not a complete deterrent but demonstrably a greater deterrent than life imprisonment.’ (Ranklin, Brown, Gateshill,1997, pg.148)Percival believed capital punishment is better for the criminal than life imprisonment, as he believes it could be seen as more humane.

In Paul’s letter to the Romans, Paul said that a ruler ‘is God’s servant and carries out God’s punishment on those who do evil.’ (Romans 13:4) This is used to support the death penalty as people who carry out the death penalty may feel they are doing so for God, as it asks for us to carry out God’s punishment for those who do evil things such as murder.

Time to Question Sanity of Death Penalty: Critical Essay

Have you ever been accused of something that you did not do? A lot of controversy surrounds capital punishment. To many, the idea of killing someone as a consequence of a crime seems just but others protest it. In fact, the death penalty cannot be as just as people make it out to be because of how much money it cost the government, some innocent people can get this sentence, and it does not allow time for rehabilitation or repentance. This can be seen in the article “ Time To Question The Sanity Of The Death Penalty.”

First of all, the author’s argument is strong because they give many valid reasons for their conclusion. The article states, “The fact is that there are several practical reasons why the death penalty just doesn’t make sense any longer if it ever really did in the first place.” It demonstrates that the death penalty is no longer needed and is also not just. This is effective because it gets a point across and it is said by a former prosecutor, officer, and criminal lawyer. The article backs this up with a quote from an inmate that was on death row, “For those who remain on death row, understand that everyone is going to die. … Statistically speaking, we have a much easier death than most, so I encourage you to embrace it and celebrate our true liberation before society figures it out and condemns us to live without parole and we too will die a lingering death.’ This proves that death row inmates do not care whether they die or not and it doesn’t allow time for them to repent for what they did.

Based on my analysis of the article, the author’s argument that the death penalty should no longer be used is valid. I agree with the points that the author makes because they are well-supported and have good reasons behind them. Although a lot of people think that having the death penalty is inexpensive, the author makes a good point here when he explains that taking care of prisoners is less expensive than using the death penalty. He states, “Numerous studies have found that death penalty criminal litigation costs taxpayers far more than prosecutions seeking life without parole.” This is a good point because it shows a common misunderstanding of the death penalty. It also explains why the death penalty doesn’t make sense and that it should no longer be used.

As you can see, the author makes some good points about why the death penalty makes sense, I mostly agree with them because most of their arguments are valid based on my analysis. Can you imagine how many innocent people could be sentenced to the death penalty if it is still used? This is putting a lot of lives at risk to be persecuted for something they did not do.