In order to become a good communicator, whether it is within a workplace, sport’s team, classroom, community, etc., you must be able to understand, listen and appreciate the perspective of other people, even if you agree with them or not. When arguing for or against a topic, the goal is to convince others to accept you opinion, take your opinion seriously, and you must seek common ground in order to establish some form of compromise. A good communicator must be specific, contestable, significant and reasonable. For this assignment, I will be arguing for and against The Death Penalty. When it comes to a topic such as The Death Penalty, many individuals cannot fathom the idea of putting another human to death because it is not permanently in out nature to want to kill. It is quite easy to grasp the fact that the physical method involves executing an individual for their criminal actions but in the same sense, emotions that follow a death sentence are beyond one’s comprehension. Although this type of act can be necessary at times, many can find they are opposed to this particular type of punishment as well. The degree of evolution in society is most often determined by attitude, no matter what gender, age or race. Some might believe this is a test to be refined. Over the years, history has taught individuals a variety of different ways how to control or punish others based on rules and laws forced by society. These principles are accepted by society to create set behavioral
In this paper I will be discussing everything you need to know about the death penalty such as its pros and cons. While the innocent can be killed, the death penalty has its pros because it prevents them from killing again if they are released or have escaped from prison, it helps overpopulated prisons, and it can help victims’ families get justice and closure. Not only can the innocent be killed, but in the past the death penalty was very inhumane. To some its feels right but to others they feel like 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Most people think that the defendant deserves the death penalty, but what does the defendants’ family think?
The death penalty, or capital punishment, has always been a topic of much debate in the United States. There are those who support it and those who oppose it, and each side has their fair share of points being made, backed by supportive evidence. The topics range from the morality of this punishment, including the methods of execution as well as fairness issues in regards to sex and race. The first issue that will be addressed is in regards to the death penalty working to prevent violent crimes.
In the article "The Case Against the Death Penalty," which shows up in Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints, Eric Freedman contends that capital punishment does not discourage fierce crime as well as conflicts with decreasing the crime rate. This essay will analyse Freedman 's article from the perspectives of a working man, a needy individual, and a government official.
The death penalty has been battered backwards and forwards by the questions of abolishment and replacement, with mixed results. There seems to a jagged line in the sand on where people stand, and due to the continuous use today (albeit at a slower clip than in the past), it is still very much a prevalent topic of punishment. Those who argue for it believe that taking it away will take away a great deterrent, that families find peace, and that those who commit egregious crimes deserve only death. Anything less “would fail to do justice because the penalty – presumably a long period in prison – would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime” (“Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments,” 2016). Those who don’t believe in this punishment as a modern-day, useful tool of deterrence and punishment for crime, continuously counter these arguments, as well as any others, daily at every turn. Though many states have made it illegal, others placing moratoriums or refusals to use it, the death penalty can still be found active today. But why can’t it be replaced with life without parole, and it if can why should it?
Death is something that a lot of people think about, but do people think about the Death Penalty? Having been given the death penalty means that someone is going to be put to death by a lethal injection or an electric chair; There are more ways, but the injection and the electric chair are the most used. There are many different opinions surrounding the idea of death penalties; which some people think the death penalty should be used more and some believe the complete opposite.
There is a topic that lingers in today's society “The death penalty” which has been around since the 1800’s hundreds. The death penalty still remains as a controversial issue in society. In the last sixty years, there has been numerous and many polls that has been carried out to determine the amount of support that the death penalty has. There has been many abolitionists that have made it known to others that the death penalty should be abolished in the US for decades. America has always been threatened with terrorist attacks, such event that has occurred in September 11, also the distribution of virus that was known to be deadly, and also random attacks by dangerous people from across the country. Due to these attacks there has been an outrage, a moral outrage, also there are new debates on whether to use or to abolish the death penalty as a way to stop criminals from committing crimes. There has been thousands of innocent people that have lost their lives due to terror attacks. There has been a rise on rape and murder due to these criminal behaviors. The victim’s family members are left with anger and hurt and
“Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong”, what makes us different from those individuals who we execute? Where do we get the right to take someone's life anymore than they? Many individuals have been executed without physical evidence, how are we to know that the individual is actually guilty? Till this day, there are thirty-one states with the death penalty and nineteen without.
Life is sacred. This is an ideal that the majority of people can agree upon to a certain extent. For this reason taking the life of another has always been considered the most deplorable of crimes, one worthy of the harshest available punishment. Thus arises one of the great moral dilemmas of our time. Should taking the life of one who has taken the life of others be considered an available punishment? Is a murderer's life any less sacred than the victim's is? Can capital punishment, the death penalty, execution, legal murder, or whatever a society wishes to call it, be morally justifiable? The underlying question in this issue is if any kind of killing, regardless of reason, can be accepted. In this
First degree murder is generally defined as the unlawful killing of a human being that was either deliberate or premeditated or takes place at the same time as certain other crimes such as, kidnapping. Current state laws make first degree murder punishable by death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole when specific “Special Circumstances” of the crime have been charged or been proven in court. It is possible though to be released by the parole board after a minimum of 25 years if they feel you are worthy. The death penalty is a topic that the United States is divided on. Currently there are 31 states with the death penalty and California is on that list. In 2012 a ballot was proposed that would appeal the death penalty as the maximum punishment for people found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. I am against prop 34 because keeping these inmates alive is very costly to the government and shows low morals for the victim’s family members.
Premise 2 your argument was to keep future victims safe and one of your example are prison guards. Prison guards are trained to handle dangerous situations and protect themselves from inmates. It is there job so why would it be okay to kill another person to keep them safe from doing the job they choose. Also, as an abolitionist I believe the death penalty is clearly a denial of a person’s human rights. The death penalty goes against the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States explicitly prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. Well isn’t that what the death punishment promotes. It’s a cruel, heartless and degrading punishment.
If we go back the late 1960’s into the 1970’s, the United States was going through a different time. Not only was the technology available, but the beliefs and views of society were different as well. From 1968 to 1972 there was a blanket stay of execution in the United States of America. This means that during this time that there were no executions being done. Now it is up to the states to decide on whether the death penalty is allowed in that state. Considering that the first legal execution of someone was in 1608, there has been a lot of time for the viewpoints on the death penalty to change. There will always be individuals who support the death penalty, and there will always be individuals who oppose the death penalty. This essay will
The Supreme Court of the United States yesterday ordered the suspension of executions of prisoners waiting on death row since before 2012, when the practice was abolished, reiterating once again that this punishment is completely unconstitutional. This happened after the adoption of a law at the state level was established three years ago in the state of Connecticut banning since then again condemn capital punishment convicted of serious crimes , except for 11 prisoners who were already awaiting their conviction.
Many states today allow for the execution of those who have committed serious crimes such as murder; this is called the death penalty. In today’s society, 61 percent of individuals are in favor, and 37 percent are not in favor of the death penalty (Dugan). There are many conflicting arguments debating whether the death penalty should be banned or not. Many reasons as to why individuals believe putting people on death row is acceptable include thinking it acts as a deterrent to more crime and that it brings closure to the victim's family (“Should the Death Penalty Be Banned as a Form of Punishment?”). Everywhere one may look, there are also counter arguments throughout society and the Church. Those who are for the death
The debate on if the death penalty is ethical is something that is a long-standing debate depending on what side of the issue you are on. Both sides of this issue have their points yet there are always things about the issue that kept it in the forefront. The right to life is taken for granted without thinking twice, however, due to the laws of this country the freedom we take for granted can be taken away with the mistakes we made. Looking at both sides of the issue gives insight on why this remains a relevant and will continue being debated not only civilly, but also in many appeals in our court system today.
The debate on the death penalty has been the ongoing question for generations. There are plenty of different sides to take on this issue. You have the side where some people think that putting prisoners to death is inhumane and that no matter what they did putting a human to death is wrong. While others may think that if the crime is extreme enough that the prisoner who committed this crime should pay for it with their own life. Throughout history there have been several instances where prisoners have been put to death in horrible, gruesome ways that would make some turn their heads toward some of these types of execution methods. The reason being because the method tortures the prisoner in the attempt to end the prisoners’ life. Although, some are not as gruesome as others, some kill the prisoner peacefully while not giving the prisoner little to no pain at all during the process. Thus, appealing to people who I agree with the death penalty but does not think that the prisoner should suffer through the procedure of getting put to death since they are already going to die. The point I’m making here is that there is a bazillion perspectives on the death penalty being in effect. Is it too humane? Are there any efficient pain free ways to end someone’s life? Should the method of killing the prisoner match the severity of the crime? These types of questions are what make this issue such a controversial topic. What side am I on? You are going to have to read my paper to find