Category: Death Penalty

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Declaration of Rights Article 7 states that all are equal before the law and are entitled to no discrimination and equal protection of the law. Additionally, Article 8 states that everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. However, the criminal justice system in the United States has proven in numerous ways to diverge from these that it claims to stand for, first in the evidential prejudice against people of color, in this case, African Americans as well as the death penalty in the United States.

It is no secret that the United States’ justice system is preputial against people of color and, most notably, the African American community. While there is not so much evidence that racial profiling is a blanket issue across the United States, there have been valid reasons to believe that its indeed a menace. Evidently, the rate of incarceration for black people is higher than for other races in America. Arrest, conviction, and sentencing are also done differently for different these communities. For instance, African Americans were 37.5% of the total incarcerated population in America out of an overall population at that time of less than 13% of black people in the country. What was more astonishing was that one in every 33 black men in the same year was in prison while a significantly lower I out of 205 white men was in prison. This disproportion stands out as a red flag in the justice system.

Furthermore, several attempts have been made that explain this disparity, with many suggesting that police officers, who primarily up until recently are white, tend to over-arrest African Americans and ignore criminals that are white. The fact that there are more arrests of

African Americans create the negative illusion that most crimes are carried out by African Americans, which is not valid. This thinking has, in turn, influenced the justice system, This belief is not only held by black people but also white folk who believe that the justice system works against the black community, In a statement made in May 1999, Justice Sandra O’Connor stated that black people believe that they are treated worse than other races and that many white people believe the same as well. Therefore, inclusive action must be taken to eradicate this racial bias in the system.

The same issue also extends to juvenile cases where young black folks are overrepresented in juvenile courts. For instance, in the year 2016, 90% of the juvenile cases recorded in New Jersey were from minority communities, with most being African Americans. These cases were of back people that committed crimes as minors but were being tried as adults. This, therefore, demonstrates a slowness in the justice system to deal with cases involving the black minority. This is contrary to the Sixth Amendment, which is intended to protect people accused of a crime, stating the accused has a right to a speedy and public trial, trial by an impartial jury which should be made up of jurors from the state in which the crime allegedly happened. Additionally, the accused has a right to call their witnesses as well as face the witness of the plaintiff face to face. The accused also must be informed of the exact charges against them.

The death penalty is the punishment of execution, administered to anybody legally convicted of a capital crime. This penalty needs to be completed to a person who is using prohibited drugs, to human rights, and many more.

This is a frequent difficulty debated by way of the senators of the Philippines or even around the world. Death penalty pursuits to execute a man or woman who is committed as a suspect of killing and rape which is against human rights but these penalties as properly is against human rights.

All the households of raped victims and the victims of injustice killings are for sure in desire this sort of penalty. But how about the household of the accused suspect of such a crime, possibly the accused suspect is being accused of a crime that he did not do.

I desire to know, no, each human beings in this world want to recognize why this sort of punishment has to be approved. What will this penalty contribute to lessening inhuman crimes, while this punishment is additionally inhuman?

Bryan Luna Representative Crispin Beltrán says, in the cutting-edge state, the gadget of justice in the country is fit to raise out the demise penalty. There are too many flaws in the justice system, and the stability is often tipped in the desire of the wealthy and the influential. The poor, being unable to pay for the services of accurate lawyers, are frequently left at the mercy of unscrupulous judges or to the weaknesses of the gadget itself.

According to Mr. Beltrán, the negative cannot come up with the money to have desirable lawyers that may additionally shield himself from accusations of heinous crimes he did but suppose first the reasons why these unlucky people commit such heinous crimes.

Most humans who experience poverty, no work, and alcohol and drug abuse are all related in explaining why people commit crimes; rape, consuming and pusher of illegal drugs, and other crimes that are against human rights.

My point right here is, these people can make no crimes that are inhuman if these human beings have matters to do, like work. If the government solely supplies these humans with something to be busy with, they will now not commit such heinous crimes.

There are many techniques for the death penalty, however, it is nonetheless inhuman. Otherwise, if the death penalty will be not approved, where is the justice in our country? I recognize that the loss of life penalty is towards human rights, however, how about those humans that can be a sufferer of rape, and this possible suspect of heinous crimes can have a better life.

I, as one of the human beings of the country of the Philippines, am no longer towards the loss of life penalty. If This is the sole and feasible way to reduce the number of criminals, to make them worry about making crimes. But I solely wish that the present-day government will assist every human that resides in this country so that we can stop the unexpected range of people that may additionally be done to such penalty. Support in a way of, giving some lectures each and every month or possibly as soon as a year of what are the one hand work a character can enter to be busy with, free scholarship for some unlucky teenagers that can’t manage to pay for to enter any school.

The death penalty is each human’s right, yet we need to think of the advantageous effects these can carry on us.

In 2019, 657 offenders were executed, Why? How? What has made us come to this?

You must be thinking how is this even legal Well this is the sad and harsh reality, this is Capital Punishment known as the Death Penalty. This is a form of punishment given by execution to prisoners, this is also a form of murder. Aren’t there any other ways to punish someone without taking a life away, for a mistake once done? This can be given for Murder, Kidnapping, Espionage, and Arson and these, are only some of the many crimes that can be given the Death Penalty Worldwide. This is not only cruel but inhumane and must be stopped.

The Death Penalty originated back in Medieval Europe, to punish anyone for the wrongdoings they committed. Back in the time when Henry VIII ruled 72,000 were executed, including witches that were allegedly executed in Europe. This is where it all went wrong!

The Death Penalty started to evolve in America, since its recent colonisation in 1584. Then an Italian Criminologist, Cesare Beccaria proposed the idea to completely abolish the Death Penalty. With the use of other influential people at the time, such as Charles Dickens.

I will be giving an insight into why I believe the Death Penalty should be abolished, and how we should change the Justice System, to reintegrate prisoners back into life.

Every single one of us in this room has made a mistake before, but you could make one silly mistake and it could cost you your life. How is that fair?

Luckily Over 70% of countries worldwide have abolished the Death Penalty. Including the UK and all European Countries, except Belarus and Russia. As these European Countries use the protocol of, the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council Of Europe. These countries realize other forms of action must take place instead. As no lives can be taken back. This is because by killing murderers has not proved that it will stop other people from committing similar crimes.

Compared to the USA which has a higher rate of violent crimes, that only makes society more brutal.

For example, Halden Prison in Norway holds some of the most notorious and high-profile inmates. These inmates have committed serious crimes. Seeing that there is no Death Penalty, the maximum year’s sentence is 21 years, even for committing murder.

Halden wants to help prisoners get back to life once they get out, treating inmates with respect as if they are still people. This prison has the lowest reoffending rate of 20% after two years, compared to the USA with 48%. In America, there is the massive issue of mass incarceration, not treating prisoners as human, and giving them the basic rights they deserve even though they are criminals, and have once made a bad decision in their life.

Prisoners that are waiting to be executed are put on Death Row. Lethal Injection ‘Gas Chambers’ The Electric Chair, are all ways to end an offender’s life, in a blink. All of these methods are completely cruel and inhumane.

One of these ways is being killed by lethal injection can cause a painful death, not only violating human rights, to have the right to die peacefully. However this should not even be happening in the first place, instead we could be giving prisoners life with no parole. This way prisoners can rehabilitate themselves in the prison walls, instead of another life gone.

To keep a person without the Death Penalty is around 740,000 dollars compared to keeping someone on Death Row for 1.26 million dollars. Instead, we should give prisoners rehabilitation, and programs to help bring them on track to a better life.

This is partly because of the mass incarceration issues, as the Death Penalty is being used to seek revenge, as a lot of people want the Death Penalty to, get back at the offender’s wrongdoings.

Some of the victim’s families might think executing the offender is an alternative, and the Death Penalty should be sought out. HOWEVER, THIS IS WRONG! If a prisoner is in life knowing they can never get out and can’t get parole, this is a way to help prisoners do more with their life.

As a way for their actions instead of being executed, adding on to go through the process of Execution for the family, is excruciating. Which makes it even worse for everyone, whereas life without parole and restitution could work.

Restitution is making prisoners work and the money earnt will go to the victim’s family, where the criminal won’t be a threat to society instead, as he or she is in prison for life. Instead of just killing criminals they won’t have time to reform, from their crime.

A Jewish Philosopher Maimonides once said It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death

The Death Penalty is, cruel, and barbaric by taking lives, as well as waiting for the process causing anxiety and fear in the offenders. Including if the execution will actually go out and happen.

Over 4.1 % have been executed in the past and found innocent. Now take a minute to think about how the system has failed all of those people. For example, Troy Davis was accused of shooting a police officer in 1989, when forensic testing was not at the level, it is today. As well as witnesses claiming he did not commit the crime, which goes to show how the system can manipulate a person so easily.

Troy Davis’s last words were, I am innocent, I did not hold the gun’ Troy Davis was black and many people like him were subjected because they were a different race from everyone else.

42% of African American people make up the majority of the Death Row population. 35% of these people are executed. These people are seen as worse at killing a white person than vice versa.

This inmate would be treated differently, so banning the Death Penalty means we don’t have these problems, and prisoners can all be treated the same. Without judging their race, or any other factors about them. Instead trying to help prisoners to rehabilitate them.

At the time when the inmate commits the crime, these offenders might be poor and cannot afford a lawyer to get a fair trial, often. During these trials, people’s backgrounds and circumstances have not been taken into account.

5-10% of these offenders have mental illnesses such as Schizophrenia and intellectual disabilities. Schizophrenia is when people hallucinate, which can affect them to do bad things, such as making a stupid mistake or a crime.

So when questioned they will mostly give false confessions, because they are in such a bad state and are pressured by the police. However, when having the trial a lot of these inmates do not understand what is going on.

Instead of killing them, we should be educating and helping them. Now offenders with a background of mental illnesses can not be executed, and this shouldn’t just apply to them but anyone, no matter the situation.

Like Maimonides once said, It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death One mistake and everything is over, now this must stop and we can all help to make a change, to stop the Death Penalty.

The death penalty has long been a contentious issue in society, raising profound moral, ethical, and legal questions. Among the numerous debates surrounding capital punishment, the question of whether juveniles should be subjected to the death penalty stands as one of the most polarizing. The imposition of the death penalty on juveniles elicits concerns about justice, human rights, and the potential for rehabilitation.

One of the primary arguments against the death penalty for juveniles is rooted in the notion of justice. Critics contend that juveniles, due to their underdeveloped cognitive abilities and limited life experiences, should not be held to the same moral and legal standards as adults. The concept of proportionality in punishment suggests that the severity of the penalty should be commensurate with the offender’s level of culpability. Applying the death penalty to juveniles ignores their potential for reform and rehabilitation, emphasizing punishment over rehabilitation.

Furthermore, proponents of abolishing the death penalty for juveniles point to international human rights norms. Organizations like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child assert that the execution of individuals under the age of 18 constitutes a violation of human rights. Such norms reflect a global consensus on the need to protect the vulnerable and impressionable minds of young individuals, as well as to offer them an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The argument against the death penalty for juveniles is also based on the growing body of scientific research that highlights the developmental differences between adolescents and adults. Neuroscientific studies reveal that the adolescent brain is still evolving, with areas responsible for impulse control, risk assessment, and decision-making not fully developed. This biological reality calls into question the idea of juveniles possessing the same level of moral culpability as adults, thus challenging the ethical basis for their execution.

Another critical concern revolves around the potential for wrongful convictions. The justice system is not immune to errors, and the finality of the death penalty leaves no room for correcting mistakes. Given the vulnerability of juvenile defendants to manipulation, misinformation, and inadequate legal representation, the risk of wrongful convictions is heightened. The irreversible nature of capital punishment makes it a perilous option when dealing with juvenile offenders.

Nevertheless, proponents of retaining the death penalty for juveniles argue that some crimes are so heinous and the offenders so incorrigible that the ultimate punishment is warranted. They contend that the age of the offender should not serve as an absolute barrier against capital punishment, especially when dealing with individuals who have committed acts of extreme violence or terrorism. Additionally, proponents argue that the possibility of the death penalty may act as a deterrent against particularly serious crimes committed by juveniles.

In conclusion, the debate over the death penalty for juveniles hinges on fundamental questions of justice, human rights, and the potential for rehabilitation. The arguments against executing juveniles rest on the principles of proportionality, international human rights norms, scientific understanding of brain development, and the risk of wrongful convictions. As society continues to evolve and our understanding of juvenile offenders deepens, the debate on this issue remains complex and multifaceted. Balancing the need for justice with a commitment to the well-being and potential for reform of young individuals remains a central challenge in this ongoing discourse.

Introduction:

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is a highly debated and controversial topic. This informative essay aims to provide an overview of the death penalty, including its historical background, various methods of execution, arguments for and against its use, and its implications on society.

Historical Background:

The use of the death penalty dates back to ancient civilizations, where it was often employed as a form of punishment for severe crimes. Over time, different societies developed their own methods of execution, including hanging, beheading, firing squad, lethal injection, and electric chair. The application and acceptance of the death penalty have varied across cultures and time periods.

Methods of Execution:

Throughout history, several methods of execution have been utilized. Traditional methods, such as hanging and firing squad, have been largely replaced by more “humane” methods, including lethal injection. However, concerns have been raised about the effectiveness and painlessness of these methods, leading to ongoing debates about their ethical implications.

Arguments For the Death Penalty:

Deterrence: Proponents argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent against heinous crimes. The fear of the ultimate punishment is believed to discourage potential criminals from committing violent acts, thereby protecting society.

Retribution and Justice: Supporters assert that capital punishment provides a sense of justice and closure for the victims’ families. They argue that certain crimes deserve the most severe punishment to balance the scales of justice.

Cost and Resources: Advocates claim that the death penalty can be more cost-effective than lengthy imprisonment. They argue that executing convicted criminals eliminates the need for prolonged incarceration, reducing the strain on prison systems and taxpayers.

Arguments Against the Death Penalty:

Human Rights and Ethics: Opponents argue that the death penalty violates the fundamental human right to life and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. They contend that the state should not have the power to take a person’s life, regardless of the crime committed.

Potential for Error and Irreversibility: Critics highlight the possibility of wrongful convictions and the irreversibility of the death penalty. Numerous cases have emerged of innocent individuals being wrongly sentenced to death, raising concerns about the fallibility of the justice system.

Inequality and Bias: The death penalty is often criticized for its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities and individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Studies have shown racial and socioeconomic disparities in its application, suggesting systemic biases.

Implications and Alternatives:

The use of the death penalty has significant implications for society. Its application raises questions about the value placed on human life, the effectiveness of deterrence, and the potential for a flawed justice system. Many countries and states have abolished or placed a moratorium on the death penalty, opting for alternative forms of punishment such as life imprisonment without parole.

Conclusion:

The death penalty is a complex and contentious issue that raises profound ethical, legal, and societal considerations. While some argue for its use as a deterrent and a form of justice, others emphasize its potential for error, its violation of human rights, and its unequal application. As public opinion continues to evolve, it is important to engage in informed discussions about the death penalty and explore alternative approaches to justice that prioritize rehabilitation, fairness, and the preservation of human life.