Pros And Cons Of Death Punishment

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 is still in use in the united states. The state with the most executions is in Texas with a total of 545 from 2017 to the year 1976 (Number of Executions, 2017). The death penalty is a very big debate. There are many reasons why and why people do and don’t like the death penalty.

) Moreover, the pattern of this kind of murderer, the killer, is almost by definition a person who takes his chances like the soldier of fortune he thinks he is. (37) Most killers do not engage in anything like a cost-benefit analysis. They are impulsive, and they kill impulsively. If capital punishment does deter criminals, it can do so only indirectly. Potential murderers must have some standard of right and wrong. They must acknowledge morals issues. They must be without mental illness and they know and have the capacity to think about what they are doing. This conception of general deterrence seems deeply flawed because it rests upon a doubtful conception of how this murderous population internalizes social norms. Although the perpetrator

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.

The death penalty has been debated for centuries. Within just America, it dates back all the way to 1608. In an article entitled “History of the Death Penalty” from the website Death Penalty Information Center, it states, “The first recorded execution in the new colonies was that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain.” So, it is safe to say that the death penalty has been around for a long time, and has been debated by many for just as long. Most people will claim that they are against the death penalty with no reason other than they believe it is immoral and wrong. Those people simply do not know the facts of how the death penalty actually helps the American Justice System. The death penalty prevents overcrowding in prisons, reoffenders, and is cheaper to the taxpayers.

M’Naghten thought the prime minister wanted to kill him, so he tried shooting him. He missed Peel and shot Peel’s secretary instead which resulted in death. The M’Naghten rule states, a criminal is not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the alleged criminal act, the defendant was so deranged that he did not know the nature or quality of his actions or, if he knew the nature and quality of his actions, but he was so far out of his right mind that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong (M’Nagh. Rule, Phelps, Lehman 97). M’Naghten was found not guilty by reason of insanity, because Medical experts testified that he wasn’t in his right mind.

The theory behind the M’Naghten rule was that, due to mental illness a person did not know right from wrong at the time the crime was committed, they could be found not guilty by reason of insanity. (Bartol, Curt R.) “The accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong." (www.law.cornell.edu) The Brawner Rule:

In Kellow Chesney's book The Victorian Underworld illustrates that the Victorians tried to use the death penalty as a means of controlling criminal elements in forms of hangings, lethal injection,Electrocution, and firing squads in order to prevent crime( the victorian underworld). in Victorian times, the death penalty was used as a means of controlling. There should be abolishment of this because of the countless innocent men and women being put to death for the stated purpose of preventing crime out of fear. So There should not be a death penalty because it violates human rights, it does not deter crime, and is a cruel and unusual punishment.

Many times the major question is do those convicted of a crime deserve to die or whether the state deserve to kill them. In other words what purpose would it serve by killing the person? What rehabilitation could they do if they are dead? This is one of the questions facing the justice system. Although the answer is not an easy one, it requires some thought and negotiation between the justice system and the state in order to determine the answer for each state. Each state must look hard and long at its financial situation as well as what is legally, morally and sometimes politically right.

During the year of 1608, the first recorded execution took place, killing Captain George Kendall. Since that moment, as the United States of America expanded, the death penalty became part of the law. Killing 1465 criminals since 1796, the death penalty has kept numerous crimes from happening. The death penalty is supported by the victim of the crime’s family, follows the “eye for an eye” rule, is a deterrent of crimes and should not be abolished.

The Death Penalty is the punishment of execution to someone who legally by court of law convicted a capital crime. In the United States of America this is mainly used for aggravated murder. Additionally this means that the murder has circumstances that are severe. For instance it was planned murder, intentionally killed below the age of 13, killed someone while serving term in prison, killed a law officer, and killed someone or illegally terminated a person’s pregnancy while in the process of committing, trying to commit or escaping after the act of rape, kidnapping, aggravated arson, arson, robbery, aggravated robbery, burglary, aggravated burglary, terrorism, or trespass. The death penalty is balanced between pros and cons, where it

Knowing the exact date and time of one’s death would be tremendously terrifying. For the people on death row, it is experienced every single day. Instead of paying their time, they get the easy way out. It puts innocent lives at risk, it is selected at random, and it costs taxpayers a fortune. The death penalty is not a fair justification and the United States should not practice this mechanism.

“There is no justice in killing in the name of justice” (Azquotes). This quote from Desmund Tutu represents some logic behind the extermination of the death penalty. There can be no justice in the death penalty. Also, the death penalty has been and always will be wrong on a moral level. Killing is morally wrong, no matter how justified. Some might say that the death penalty lowers crime rates, or saves lives in the long run, but this may not be the case. There has been no evidence that the death penalty lowers crime rates (“What’s New”). Others might say that the death penalty has been reserved only for the “worst of the worst”: people that have committed the most brutal crimes (“Top 10 Pro”). However, many cases have been presented in which the accused may not be considered the “worst of the worst”, or even deserving of jail time (“What’s New”). For these reasons alone the death penalty should be abolished. It is unconstitutional and morally wrong.

The Death Penalty (DP), being also known as capital punishment, capital offence and corporal punishment, is a sentence of death imposed on a convicted criminal (1); this essay will use all the terms interchangeably. The DP breaches two fundamental human rights, namely the right to life and the right to live free from torture; both rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the United Nations in 1948, which contains a list of each human rights that everyone is entitled to (UDHR 1948). Nevertheless, in 2016 alone at least 1,032 people were executed in 23 countries; most executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan (Amnesty International 2017).