In Cold Blood Capital Punishment

The U.S prison population rose by 700% from 1970 to 2005. A rate far outpacing that of general population growth and crime rates.

Capital punishment is one of the most controversial topics in today’s world. Many people believe that it is morally wrong to have capital punishment as a sentence to a crime. People also do believe that it is morally permissible for a severe crime. Capital punishment is also known as the death penalty. It can be given as a sentence when somebody is convicted of an extremely violent crime. The biggest issue that can be seen with this is that somebody could be innocent and sentenced with the death penalty because of the nature of the crime that they have been accused of even if they didn’t commit it. I believe that there is a moral line between using the death penalty and using other forms of punishment.

There was no real reason to kill them. The death penalty should be the punishment for the second degree murder. Perry and Dick deserve the death penalty because what they did was cruel, not necessary, and insane. What the two men did was just brutal and murder is not an acceptable thing. Perry and Dick had the family tied up, gagged, and then soon killed.

A controversy much discussed in the United States is the death penalty. For many years, the U.S. has carried out more than one thousand executions and is currently ranked fifth for the highest number of executions in the world (according to National Geographic and The Guardian). What many people would like to know is how long America’s government can go allowing this act to continue until it realizes that it is inhumane and hypocritical. The death penalty should not be permitted in any states whatsoever simply because it is an immoral implacable law and not only declares its victims as killers, but also our government as killers.

Taxpayers will experience an increase of approximately $27.5 billion over the next five years that will be spent on prison and the prison system. (Riordan 2007).

In Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood, the author confronts the reader with the discussion of the need for the death penalty, by presenting the issue through the characters of Dick Hickock and Perry Smith. He writes, “Our state provides that the punishment for murder in the first degree shall be imprisonment for life or death by hanging. That is the law. You, gentlemen, are here to enforce it. And if ever there was a case in which the maximum penalty was justified, this is it.” (27-31) The Prosecuting Attorney Logan Green uses the law as a justification of the death penalty. This statement clarifies the penalty and proves the necessity of its use. The Attorney views this to be the prominent solution, in which anything less would be too fair to the murderers. He then states, “So gentlemen, what are you going to do?

In Truman Capote’s non-fiction novel In Cold Blood, the Clutter family’s murderers, Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, are exposed like never before. The novel allows the reader to experience an intimate understanding of the murderer’s pasts, thoughts, and feelings. It goes into great detail of Smith and Hickock’s pasts which helps to explain the path of life they were walking leading up to the murder’s, as well as the thought’s that were running through their minds after the killings.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we are gathered here today not to assess whether these men, Richard Hickock and Perry Smith, are guilty of their crimes; they have confessed and there is overwhelming evidence against them. No, today we are here to determine how they will pay for taking the lives of four innocent people, the Clutter family. My role here is to argue that these men should pay for their crimes with their lives. This is not merely a matter of opinion; this is what should be done according to the law of the great state of Kansas. Using evidence that the criminals themselves have provided, I shall prove to you that these men deserve to get the death penalty

I, for one, believe that any degree of murder is not acceptable, and for anyone that does attempt, or commits murder should face consequences. Possibly I am being harsh with my thoughts, but as much as Richard and Perry had very difficult pasts, they knew what they wanted to do, and how to do it. They had the choice to not break their parole, but instead wanted to invade a family’s home for money, which is a crime, and ended up killing the family, which is also a crime. There is no reason to feel sympathetic to anyone who murders, whether it is an intense degree of murder or not. People have options in life, and when it comes to killing or not killing, the choice is ultimately up to the person who may commit

Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood makes a great case for justice in relation to death. In the book, two criminals, Dick and Perry, worked together to murder the Clutters. They got caught and trial, however at the time Kansas maximum incarceration was life imprisonment with parole and most prisoners are paroled after twenty years. Twenty years of imprisonment for brutally killing four members of the most influential family in the area, causing mass hysteria for everyone in Holcomb and for others who are involved in the case is unquestionably too short. However, is the death penalty fair for both of them, considering Dick had a mental disorder and Perry had a terrible upbringing? This brings us to a bigger, broader question: to what extent does the law and judgement system achieve their main purpose: bringing justice to everyone?

sentence is up to five to ten times greater in cases with white victims than

These increases are caused by a rise in recidivism, the lengthening of prison sentence, a decrease in of parole. This has also created budget issues for the operation and the expansions of correctional facilities across America. Prisons are filled beyond their capacities, and the staff is not enough to keep up with this rapid growth. In the past decades Illegal immigration has also contributed to the increased inmate populations. Budgets are not enough for the correctional systems to support community-based programs, such as parole, house arrest and, day reporting. The increase in prison population is also putting more stress on an already

Privatizing prisons may be one way for the prison population to get back under control. Prisons are overcrowded and need extra money to house inmates or to build a new prison. The issue of a serious need for space needs to be addressed. “As a national average, it costs roughly $20,000 per year to keep an inmate in prison. There are approximately 650,000 inmates in state and local prisons, double the number five years ago. This costs taxpayers an estimated $18 billion each year. More than two thirds of the states are facing serious overcrowding problems, and many are operating at least 50 percent over capacity. (Joel, 1988)” Private prisons may be for profit, but if they can solve the issue of cost then it may be a

Capital punishment is a custom in which prisoners are executed in accordance with judicial practice when they are convicted of committing a “capital crime.” Capital crimes are crimes considered so atrocious that they should

The prison system's overcrowding is making them more and more expensive to afford. Also, mandatory sentences have hindered the Judiciary's ability to sentence offenders with discretion; so many offenders are sent to prison automatically, without regard for mitigating circumstances. For some of these offenders, prison may not be the most appropriate remedy. The cost to house and feed the inmates is skyrocketing. As with the general public, the cost to provide medical treatment, especially to those elderly and special needs inmates, has increased substantially.