The Death Penalty Is Not The Answer

In this article it states what all methods are used for the death penalty. In Eight states it allows electrocution (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia). Three states it allows the gas chamber (Arizona, Missouri, and Wyoming). Three other states allow hanging (Delaware, New Hampshire, and Washington). Two other states allow the firing squad (Oklahoma and Utah), though only Oklahoma is the one that uses it. Utah allowed that option before it was banned in 2004.

Committing crimes as horrendous as mass shootings at schools should be dealt with the highest punishment available under the constitution. Mass shooters like Adam Lanza, who in cold blood murdered 20 children and 6 staff members in an elementary school located in the quiet town of Sandy Hook, Connecticut. There is no rehabilitation for a psychopathic killer who takes the life of TWENTY innocent children with neither hesitation nor reason. Adam Lanza is the prime example of a criminal who deserved to be tried with the death penalty as an option. He held no remorse, before he went to the elementary school and slaughtered 20 kids; he murdered his 52 year old mother while she was sleeping in her bedroom. These are characteristics of a man who deserved the death penalty as punishment for the murder of 26 people and suffering inflicted on the families. This man was neither innocent nor deserving of sympathy. In cases similar to Sandy Hook, the death penalty should be an option.

As Ghandi once said, “You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty”. Canada is a society based around democracy; if the government grants themselves the absolute power to end a person’s life with a single sentence, there are bound to be negative repercussions. It is human nature to makes mistakes, but it is a virtue to learn from them. Instead of resulting to the death penalty as a punishment for committing a serious crime, society should have faith in that person’s ability to change, improve, and be rehabilitated. Moreover, the death penalty is an ineffective way to punish criminals when it comes to serious crimes. If anything, it is an escape for those who have no remorse for their actions. There is no reason to end the life of a human being, no matter how malevolent they are, as it does not benefit society in any way, shape, or form. One could argue that the offender would no longer be able to harm others, but that same result could come from a prison sentence. Furthermore, the rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are fundamental human rights that are not subject to a select group of people, but all of humanity. Capital punishment, no matter the reason, is essentially still murder, as the life of another human is being taken. Limitations must be set in order to separate humanity from the criminals it harbors. Society

The first established death penalty laws date back to Ancient Babylon. Their tyrannical ruler Hammurabi established The code of Hammurabi most known to the laws an “eye for an eye and “tooth for a tooth”. Throughout the past this was the correct way of life, on the other hand the question is risen today, is the death penalty still reasonable? Coming to the question of bringing what makes our system better if we kill those who kill? The very idea of the state putting individuals to death is too much to endure. Capital punishment brings no benefits, undermining the constitution for reasons such as flawed executions, racism, innocents being framed, bias, revenge cost, and other critical reasoning. It is not only impractical, but it also does not prevent crime. Death row fails to recognize that people who are found guilty throughout the system have the potential to change, but how can they do that if they are denied the right to regain redemption in society. Nevertheless, the Death penalty should be eradicated based on the unlawful justice and its incapability to serve as a deterrent.

When people are committing serious crimes such as murder, they aren't exactly thinking about whether they are going to face the death penalty. They are going to commit the murder regardless if that's what they had planned out. The claim that the death penalty can reduce further and similar crimes from occurring has not confidently been proven yet. A great number of those committing these crimes that can face death penalty are mentally ill, or having other issues in their lives, why end their lives instead of helping them? That doesn't completely process through my head completely. We can simply give them life in prison instead of gathering and wasting everyone's tax money to execute them. By the government "legally" ending someone's life, it begins to show other's that it is ok to murder others. That is not the message we should be sending to our people of

I completely disagree with the archaic and obsolete way of the death penalty since it's way to expensive, it doesn't make the crime go away and the person could be innocent. First off , the amount of money spent on the death penalty is tremendous. Los Angeles Times Study Finds California Spends $250 Million per Execution in a 2005 article, ACLU has reported that "California taxpayers pay at least $117 million each year post-trial seeking execution of the people currently on death row;Executing all of the people currently on death row, or waiting for them to die there of other causes, will cost California an estimated $4 billion more than if they had been sentenced to die in prison of disease, injury, or old age; California death penalty trials

and the remainder of states continue to use the death penalty. The methods of execution are limited to lethal injection, gas chamber, firing squad, electric chair or hanging. Lethal injection is the most commonly used.

The state murdering people because of their crimes simply does not equate to justice. It is real easy to hear about how the government is doing this wrong or that,but the death penalty is abounded with so many injustices and faults that it's an embarrassment to our entire due process of law. Supporters of capital punishment subscribe to religious and ethical points of view rather than facts, and when they do offer facts it's always the same argument: "It's a deterrent." The death penalty is extremely flawed, most notably it comes with a very high price tag to an already under-funded correctional institution in America; no stable argument has been installed to warrant it as a deterrent; and the moral decay it establishes creates among other things a feeling of revenge and spite within society. The flaws of capital punishment become too many shortly after they total one. This is because of the focus of the death penalty that being human life. Innocent people being sent to death or being released within weeks of execution are becoming frequent stories on the nightly news. The legal system is disturbingly unable to correctly administer the death penalty. Every day individuals who can't afford a lawyer have to have one appointed to them under the constitution. These

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

When presented with a heinous crime, the question of whether the death penalty should be an option has often sparked heated debates between left wing liberals and right wing conservatives. Those on the left would most likely argue that capital punishment does not serve any beneficial purpose in our society. In contrast, conservatives, provided that they have no religious motives to oppose the death penalty, would likely argue that it is a necessary punishment for heinous crimes. For thousands of years the death penalty has been used as the ultimate form of punishment for a vast number of crimes and in even more numerous methods. Babylon’s King Hammurabi identified 25 different crimes that justified the death penalty; the list did not however include murder. A popular form of punishment during the colonial period in New England, over 222 crimes were punishable by death. These numbers began to dwindle to zero once it was determined that capital punishment was inhumane by the British government ("The history of capital punishment"). The movement to abolish the death penalty has spread to many other countries around the world but has yet to have a widespread effect in the United States. Still currently legal in the U.S. in 31 states, the death penalty remains as a reminder of mankind’s barbaric past (Facts about the Death Penalty).

While criminals must be punished for their criminal actions, “legalized murder”, as author Coretta Scott King put it, is immoral. The death penalty is legalizing the very thing that many on death row are charged for, murder. There is a multitude of lawful alternatives, to the death penalty, of reestablishing a better reputation for the criminals. The Constitution has no true right to allow such a felonious form of rehabilitation.

Since the 1700s, the death penalty has been a form of punishment nearly 16,000 times, although there were no executions between 1967 and 1977 when the death penalty was resumed after a Supreme Court ruling (Wilson, 2014). The methods used throughout the U. S. history has included hanging, firing squad, burning, gas chamber, lethal injection, electrocution, and the gas chamber. The gas chamber, hanging and firing squad however, are not the only options in the states where it is still available (Death Penalty Information Center, 2011).

The Death Penalty has been used in the United States since the very foundation of our nation; the first recorded case was the execution of Captain George Kendall in 1608 in the Jamestown colony as it was believed Kendall was a spy (DPIC). Americans have seen executions throughout history and are somewhat exposed to the idea but the 21st century is a very different place than the 17th century. This century is a time of equality and rights for people of all

The problem with the death penalty is that it models the action/behavior that is trying to be prevented. Doing that is like a slap to the face because it makes it seem like it's okay to kill someone if you are a part of the government versus being a normal citizen. The other issue with the death penalty is that it's not really affective like government

The problem with the death penalty is that it is a big waste of money. Yes, in some cases it can make people feel better, like they are getting revenge on the people that did the crime to their loved one or someone they know but that is really cruel. In the article, The Price of Justice it shows how the price were a few years ago and it can only of up from there “in 1988, The Miami Herald reported that the cost of the death penalty in Florida was $3.2 million per execution compared to $600,000 for life imprisonment.103 Similarly, The Dallas Morning News reported in 1992 that the trials and appeals of a capital case alone cost Texas $2.3 million per case on average”. Making the criminal sit in a jail cell that is not that big with other bad people is more of a punishment then just killing them. And it is a lot cheaper to do it that way as well. The cost of the death penalty is not reasonable because the state can’t even perform the death penalty the right way. And we can use the money for better things for our states and for our society so we can improve our comity’s so