UUM
Universiti Utara Malaysia
THE ANSWERS OF FINAL EXAMINATION
JANUARY SEMESTER 2013/2014 SESSION
SBLE2103 CONFIDENTIAL
DISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAMME l
I hope this work will be of any benefit to you. Meanwhile I wish to express my utmost regards to the course lecturer
(Nur Fatirah binti Mohd Dzahir) for her time to make corrections to this work.
ALHAIDER, MAHDI
....................................................................................................................................................
CODE / COURSE : SBLE2103 / PROCESS WRITING
DATE : 13 MAY 2013 (MONDAY)
TIME I 9.00 AM — 11:30 AM (2 1/z HOURS)
VENUE : DTSO
…show more content…
Therefore, death penalty fits the purpose of crime punishment. The argument against the death penalty is mainly ethical in its nature as the risk of executing the innocent is high. It is argued that it is basically wrong to kill and that when the state kills it sends out the wrong message to the rest of the country. When people have been killed there is no chance of rehabilitation or criminals trying to make up for crimes. For this reason capital punishment has been called ‘the bluntest of blunt instruments’. However, there is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to the UK death penalty system in the 1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are very rare. With the arguments presented above, it seems clear that there are many valid reasons in support of death penalty. On the contrary, anti-death penalty arguments need to be assessed critically, as, for instance, the ethical issue. Further research into the topic is necessary, with more authoritative studies on the deterrent effect of death penalty on the criminal rates, tracing various states in the UK as well as evidence from other nations. It would also be interesting to examine the historical background of nations that have both capital punishment in their law codes and extremely low crime rate to see how the death penalty affects crime rates.
Adapted from:
Devon,
The death penalty is one of the greatest controversial punishments in the world. There are numerous people who agree with this practice and plenty more who do not agree and believe we should be done with it all together. Some important credential people who give compelling arguments for abolishing the death penalty is Diann Rust-Tierney and Barry Scheck, whereas; the people against abolishing it is Robert Blecker and Kent Scheidegger.
In these two short essays, one by Anthony G. Amsterdam and another by Ernest Van Den Haag both authors make two very important views. Although one supports capital punishment and one is against capital punishment, both authors have good reasons to support their case. Amsterdam believes that capital punishment is a brutal process that a murderer has to go through. Amsterdam believes that the murderer should be punished for their actions, but should not go through capital punishment. Although Ven Den Haag agrees that capital punishment is one of the harshest penalties, it should nevertheless be used. Ven Den Haag believes that a murderer should take responsibility for their actions,
BODY 1- We can prevent disgraceful crimes from happening by bringing back the death penalty; by following this adjustment there will be minor crimes being committed. Recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with approximately 74 fewer murders each following year. Death penalty serves a definite purpose of reducing crime as well as bringing justice
In “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives”, written and published by David B. Mulhausen on September 29, 2014, Mulhausen speaks of the reasons why the death penalty is a proper way to bring murderers to justice. He believes that “some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties” (Mulhausen). Not only does he believe that the death penalty is useful to set criminals to justice, but he also believes that the enforcement of the death penalty deters crime rates.
The legitimacy of the use of capital punishment has been tarnished by its widespread misuse , which has clouded our judgment regarding the justifiability of the death penalty as a punitive measure. However, the problems with capital punishment, such as the “potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness and racial skew" , are not a basis for its abolition, as the world of homicide suffer from these problems more acutely. To tackle this question, one must disregard the currently blemished universal status quo and purely assess the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty as a punitive measure. Through unprejudiced examination of the death penalty and its consequential impacts, it is evident that it is a punishment that effectively serves its retributive, denunciatory, deterrent, and incapacitative goals.
Some of the arguments in support of death penalty are it decreases the chance of crime rate. In absence of death penalty there is higher chance of increase in crime rate. According to the time magazine, an estimated two hundred thousand people in United States have been victims of some kind of crimes. With not proper law criminals will feel more free to commit heinous crimes. To secure the community and create a sense of fear in criminals to commit horrible crimes, there is a need for death penalty.
Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty, written by Mark Costanzo, neatly lists reasons for opposition, and abolishment of, the death penalty. Costanzo provides a review of the history of the death penalty, a review of how the death penalty process is working today, questions on whether or not if the death penalty is inhumane and cheaper than life imprisonment. He also questions if the death penalty is fairly applied and the impact, if any, that it has on deterrence. He closely examines the public's support of the death penalty and questions the morality of the death penalty. Finally, Costanzo provides his own resolution and alternative to the death penalty. Each of these items allows the reader an easy, and once again, neat view
The first argument that I shall contend with is that capital punishment does not deter crime. Opponents of capital punishment say the death penalty is not necessary. Other countries that no longer have the death penalty have not experienced an increase in the number of murders. The idea is that the death penalty does not deter crime. Countries such as Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, and Belgium have not carried out executions since the early part of the century, yet these countries have not experienced a rise in crimr rates (Block, 1983). However, deterrence is not the question when you are looking at the retributive value of capital punishment. In short, deterrence can only work if the threat of punishment is combined with the conviction that the forbidden acts are not only illegal and therefore punishable but immoral. Without the conviction of morality, the easily frightened will not break the law, but the fearless will break the law, the irrational will break the law, and all others will break the law.
The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. There is no harsher punishment than death itself. This nation, the United States of America, is currently one of fifty-eight nations that practice the death penalty, if one commits first-degree murder as of 2012. People that believe in the death penalty also believe that it will deter murders. In this paper I will argue that the death penalty does not deter criminals and that this nation should outlaw the practice.
Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Why do some view the taking of a life morally correct? These questions are discussed and debated upon in every state and national legislature throughout the country. Advantages and disadvantages for the death penalty exist, and many members of the United States, and individual State governments, have differing opinions. Yet it seems that the stronger arguments, and evidence such as cost effectiveness, should lead the common citizen to the opposition of Capital Punishment.
Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty, is a controversial subject which has been argued for decades due to the ethical decisions involved. People believe the death penalty is the right thing to do and that it is the perfect example of ‘justice’ while others believe that it is immoral and overly expensive. The death penalty is not a logical sentence for criminals, it doesn’t give them the right type of justice and it is immoral.
An innocent man is wrongly executed whilst a man who raped and murdered a mother and her thirteen year old daughter spends the rest of his life with three meals a day and cable television. Which of these is the bigger injustice? The use of the death penalty to punish serious crimes is a very controversial topic and there is much debate surrounding the issue. This paper will briefly discuss arguments supporting and against the use of the death penalty.
Studies of the deterrent effect of the death penalty have been conducted for several years, with varying results. Most studies have failed to produce evidence that the death penalty deterred murders more effectively then the threat of imprisonment. The reason for this is that few people are executed and so the death penalty is not a satisfactory deterrent. If capital punishment were carried out
Last but not least, from a sociologic perspective, capital punishment does not work as intended, to deter crime rate, rather, it might brutalize individuals, at the same time does nothing good to the victim’s family other than brutal vengeance. The origin of death penalty is served as a vehicle to put a warning for those potential future criminals that such kind of behavior will lead to death. However, so far, no clear evidence can be seen that capital punishment, as a mechanism of deterrent, actually cut down the local crime rate. Ironically, a reversal trend was found by Death Penalty Information Center (2010) in the USA that the death penalty leads to an increase in local murder rate. To die might be too easy for the mindless murderers. Also, for the relatives or friends of criminals put into death through capital punishment, they are more likely to be
The debate on whether or not the death penalty should be abolished has been ongoing for quite a long period of time. While there are those who believe that the death penalty does not serve its intended purpose, proponents of the same are convinced that the relevance of the same cannot be overstated and hence it should not be abolished. In this text, I examine the arguments for and against the death penalty.