Being Against Death Penalty Essay

The death penalty is a controversial topic in the United States today and has been for a number of years. The death penalty was overturned and then reinstated in the United States during the 1970's due to questions concerning its fairness. The death penalty began to be reinstated slowly, but the rate of executions has increased during the 1990's. There are a number of arguments for and against the death penalty. Many death penalty supporters feel that the death penalty reduces crime because it deters people from committing murder if they know that they will receive the death penalty if they are caught. Others in favor of the death penalty feel that even if it doesn't deter others from committing crimes, it will eliminate

Capital punishment and the practice of the death penalty is an issue that is passionately debated in the United States. Opponents of the death penalty claim that capital punishment is unnecessary since a life sentence accomplishes the same objective. What death penalty opponents neglect to tell you is that convicted murders and child rapists escape from prison every year(List of prison escapes, 2015). As I write this essay, police are searching for two convicted murders who escaped from the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York on June 6th, 2015. The ONLY punishment from which one cannot escape is the death penalty.

     There are many reasons to both support and oppose the death penalty. Many people can feel very strongly about whether or not they approve of this method of punishment. I feel that the death penalty is wrong, and I believe that there is much support to back this up. I believe that the death penalty is wrong because it is not an effective deterrent, racially and economically bias, unreliable, expensive, and morally wrong of society.

Thousands of people will attack the death penalty. They will give emotional speeches about the one innocent man or woman who might accidentally get an execution sentence. However, all of these people are forgetting one crucial element. They are forgetting the thousands of victims who die every year by the hands of heartless murderers. There are more murderers out there than people who are wrongly convicted, and that is what we must remember.

The Death penalty has been a controversial subject since the beginning of time. People are concerned about the morality of the death penalty thus making it a debatable subject. Because of this, James Freeman, columnist for USA Today, decided to write an editorial on the subject of “Does America need the death penalty?” While being a writer for USA Today, one would think that he would effectively use the appeals of rhetoric (ethos, pathos, and logos), but in fact he does not and concludes with a poorly writing argument.

The death penalty is currently used by 34 states and is used by the federal government for punishing federal crimes. And in most cases the death penalty is used when the criminal has been convicted of murder. However, two people have been sentenced to death for the rape of a minor. The definition of the death penalty is: execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense. This begs the question does the government have the right to take away someone’s life? And if so is it ethical and moral? Overall the goal of the Criminal Justice system is to give the right sentence and protect the people. Even though the death penalty does this, there are better more efficient ways to accomplish that

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

There are many studies which show the death penalty as a non-deterrent to the serious crime problem that is faced in the United States. The death penalty continues to be the most controversial sentence with over half the states re-instituting capital punishment laws since the Furman v Georgia decision in 1972. Nevertheless, even if the death penalty were no greater a deterrent than a life sentence, some people would still advocate is the only way to get rid permanently society of dangerous criminals who deserve to die. Being that the death penalty is considered a deterrent to criminal activity does it make the execution morally right or just brutal?

There are many problems facing our criminal justice system today. Some of the more important ones are overcrowded jails, the increasing murder rate, and keeping tax payers content. In light of these problems, I think the death penalty is our best and most reasonable solution because it is a highly effective deterrent to murder. And, tax payers would be pleased to know that their hard-earned tax dollars are not being wasted on supporting incorrigible criminals who are menaces to society. In addition, they would not be forced to fund the development of new penitentiaries in order to make room for the growing number of inmates in our already overcrowded jails. Moreover, the death penalty would

“Murder is wrong” (“Capital Punishment”). We’ve been taught this indisputable truth since childhood. The death penalty is defined as one human taking the life of another. Coincidentally, that is a classification of murder. There are as many as thirty-six states with the death penalty, and it’s essential that they change it. The United States needs the death penalty abolished because it is filled with flaws, cruel and immoral, and is an ineffective means of deterrent for crime.

The death penalty is one of the topics people either fully agree with or are absolutely against it, very few people are in between. I'm personally pro death penalty. There is pros and cons to this topic, as well as everything else.

Many who disagree with the death penalty believe it is immoral, discriminates, is very expensive, increases crime, and is only a way to carry out revenge. This, however, is not true. Capital punishment should be legal because it is moral, by not allowing criminals to roam the streets once again. It does not discriminate against those of color or the poor, and is actually less expensive than life imprisonment. The most important reason why the death penalty should be legal is because it deters crime.

How can the justice system guarantee someone a fair trial when the accused can’t afford an attorney that can properly defends them? For instance, “Of the approximately 3,350 people on death row as of 2007, nearly all are impoverished, and many belong to minority groups (more than 40 percent are African American). Defendants who have the resources to hire private investigators, psychiatrists, and expert lawyers face much lower odds of ending up in the death chamber.” (Ballaro & Cushman pars.12)

Disasters in Death Introduction I. Roosevelt Collins, a black man in Alabama, was convicted of rape, sentenced to death, and executed in 1937. Roosevelt testified that the “victim” who was white had consented to sex, which caused a near-riot in the courtroom. The all-white jury deliberated for only FOUR minutes. Later interviews with several jurors revealed that although they believed the act was consensual, they also thought that he deserved death simply for “messin’ around” with a white woman. Even the judge, off the record, admitted his belief that Roosevelt was telling the truth, QUOTE: “An innocent man went to his death.” Horace Dunkins was executed on July 17, 1989. His attorney never told the jury he was mentally retarded, with