Opposing Death Sentence

They should be sought out and punished for crimes against humanity. There also should be an international coalition brought together to observe every execution to make sure nations abide by rules and regulations set forth by the international community. A total 139 countries has abolished the death penalty around the world (Sangiorgio, 2011). Support and the demand for the end of the death penalty are growing stronger every day and this article shows that the death penalty isn’t as popular as it used to be among people.

Death penalty is a constant source of controversy and divided opinion depending on who you ask. The punishment of death is given to criminals who commit severe crimes. The severity of crimes that attract the death penalty is debatable due to the severity of the crime. The justice system is based upon punishment for crimes committed by emphasizing the punishment fitting the crime committed. Countries such as China and Singapore, and United States, issue the death penalty to punish murderers or rapist, therefore fueling the already going debate on how to befit the punishment is in such cases. All the death penalty aims to achieve is the punishment to those who break the rules. The death penalty has well documented weaknesses as well as strengths. Not least of is brutality and finality, some of these frailties lead to the calls for its abolishment. The death penalty is inhumane. Wrongly applied as well as completely unjustifiable sometimes killing innocent people irrespective of the crime. Life sentence of imprisonment without parole or pardon achieves all that the death penalty seeks to achieve without costing the society its moral standing and families losing those they love.

     The death penalty is absolutely outrageous. There is no real reason that the government should feel that it has the right to execute people. Capital punishment is murder just as much as the people being executed murdered. The is no need for the death penalty and it needs to be abolished. It goes against the Constitution which states that there will be no cruel and unusual punishment. There is nothing crueler than killing a person.

People who commit the crime should get imprisoned for what they did for how long ever it is given. Murderer who took away other's lives should be imprisoned for what they did for the rest of their lives. Death penalty is absolutely not necessary because imprison itself will take away the whole lives; they will not be allowed to have any life as human in society. We kill him, because he killed is simply how death penalty works. Death penalty is only to take away people's life, not reasonable punishment for their sin.

Death penalty is a just punishment for crimes committed against the rights of life, freedom and safety of victims. Some people are of the opinion that death should be only being justified with death; this gives the idea that the perpetrator of a crime should be

Most death row inmates or victims of the capital punishment are the result of inadequate legal representation. Around 90% of the defendants charged with crimes leading to capital punishment are poverty stricken. Thus, they are unable to afford quality legal representation and are often stuck with lawyers

Many people question the need for the death penalty, the execution of those who have committed certain crimes, as a capital punishment. For instance, the author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment”, Jack Greenburg, who is a Professor of Law at Columbia University, argues that the death penalty does not benefit society and is not necessary. Likewise, Kevin Johnson, writer of “Study Finds No Evidence Death Penalty Deters Crime”, also argues against the use of the death penalty by pointing out the flaws in the common research of deterrence. On the other hand, some may also argue for the many aids the death penalty offers. Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy at Fordham University, Ernest Van den Haag, with his “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense”, and authors James M. Reams and Charles T. Putnam, with their article, “Making a Case for the Deterrence Effect of Capital Punishment”, both give arguments for the grander justice the death penalty offers. While each of these articles give very well thought out claims for the necessity of the death penalty, using arguments including racism, and deterrence, Van den Haag’s claim gives the clearest and best arguments.

Against the Death Penalty: An Annotated Bibliography While the Death Penalty has been historically used as a deterrent of crime, it is barbarity, is economically costly, and racially bias in the United States of America. With this research paper, I will explain how the death penalty should be abolish from our judicial system. Death Penalty Information Center. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org./ This is a website that gives lots of information about the death penalty from the history, current inmates and trials that could lead to death row.

Some may argue that no person should have their life taken from them because of a mistake, but the criminals were the one’s to take a life just because they wanted to. Also the families and friends of the victims believe that if the criminal took the life of the one they love then it would be only fair to take theirs. Imprisonment is also seen as an unfair punishment for criminals because they get fed in prison, have somewhere to sleep, and don’t have to face the public that will hate them because of the crime they committed. Some people see the death penalty as completely fair and 100% justified because you have to live with your mistakes and when you commit a crime there is

In conclusion the death penalty is an inhuman act of torture that doesn’t solve criminal justice. There should not be a death penalty because of the inhumanity and disregards of of human rights. The criminal process is abused and should not be used to prevent crime with the imposition of the death penalty(the death penalty 2013). There are a lot of citizens in numerous countries that are still unaware that the death penalty is a form of brutalization not protection.in the artical stating the death penalty does not deter crime they say Abolition is gaining ground, but not fast enough this is true is that state that many are still getting killed without justice being served( the death penalty 2009) . There should not be a death penalty because it violates human rights, it does not deter crime, and is a cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty does not deter crime it increases it.

The death penalty is engaged to show governmental power and is used against people to show others that you will not have the right to live if commit such a terrible crime. People have been killed by the death penalty for many reasons such as treason, terrorism, espionage and murder. Having the death penalty gives closure to the families victim, justice is better served, and deters criminals from committing crimes. Think about if you were close to a victim who traumatized or even killed by a master criminal. You would want the same to be served to the harsh owt law who endangered your

The death penalty, formally reflected as capital punishment, is one of the most controversial issues in America. The debate about capital punishment has been going on for decades with both sides arguing for their claim. Death sentences are usually handed out to those who have committed a capital crime; however, the death penalty shouldn’t be so easily considered based on the margin of possible error that can be made in the process. It has been proven, and not everything is one hundred percent. There are flaws in the criminal justice system, and the fact that we use the Adversarial system in which the prosecution and defense pick and choose what will be presented should be taken into account. Even though some people may believe capital

Death is unavoidable in life, and there's no escape. People are dying in different ways every day and every second... The fear of death could be overcome by good moral dignity, maybe this is one of the most difficult tasks of our lives - to say "goodbye". Life itself in all its diversity is limited to a natural death, but it’s another thing - " when the government kills". Many countries still have the death penalty. No doubt that the government of each country is trying to provide a peaceful life and security of its citizens, and in some cases has only the right to control their lives in a certain situations. But can it be lawful to call the death penalty murder, murder by a court?

Death penalty sends a bad message to the society. The people in the society are made to believe that human life has no value, and when one commits a heinous crime like murder, they deserve to die. This is a bad message to the society because, the society should be taught to respect each others life and that every individual has a right to life. A humane society does not kill or support the killing of their fellow human beings, therefore, capital punishment is a violent homicide that teaches the society the permissibility of killing in order to solve social issues, and this is a bad sign. Hence, death penalty should not be allowed because it is the worst example to the society.

For my believes, life is the most valuable thing what we have. Nobody has a right to take of other persons life. It is God's creation so if he wants he will take it. The death penalty won't help the person to recognize their guilt. If the people will be killed many of them won't recognize their sin. If to put them in a closed prison where no windows no people and four walls. I am against all that stuff like death penalty. The use of food for those people, is many but it is better than death penalty. The prove was found that many of people who were killed by death penalty were innocent. The problem is that people that are doing the death penalty often make errors. The prisoners that could be in prison instead of death could be for their whole life in the prison. Yes it is not a big punishment, like death penalty, but it is saves life for the person even a really bad one.