The Pros And Cons Of Abolish The Death Penalty

Showing people that commit these atrocious crimes that this behavior remains intoleratable and that a punishment that fits every crime exists shows what is necessary to detour future criminals. If more criminals believe that they can be caught, tried and executed they will be less inclined to commit such heinous crimes. If we as a government do not execute murderers that in turn could have deterred other murders, then we have allowed the killings to continue and innocent victims to die. Lowe concludes, “The whole reason why nations and governments exist is to defend their decent citizens from vicious criminals. When it fails to do that, they become of little use to its citizens. When a society ignores their

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?

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.

Keeping a prisoner in jail for life will be very expensive considering that it costs $80,000 a year; and the bad news is that the money comes from the taxpayer's pocket. Thousands of people will attack the death penalty. They will give emotional speeches about the one innocent man who might be executed. However, all of these people are forgetting one crucial element. They are forgetting the thousands of victims who die every year. This may sound awkward, but the death penalty saves lives. It saves lives because it stops those who murder from ever murdering again (Bryant). These opinions represent some of the strongest and most influential views that proponents hold. However, if our prison system could rehabilitate more effectively, perhaps those who murdered once, could change.

I agree with Steven’s assertion because the death penalty prevents those who are wrongfully convicted of a crime from being released upon evidence that the real suspect has been proven guilty. This brings forth Stevens’s “final, yet fallible” argument. Not only

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.

This debate is going to argue if we should fully abolish the death penalty or if we should keep it, two people are going to be arguing facts with the other two people. Three rounds are going to take place and the audience is going to choose the winner. The two people who want to abolish the death penalty is Diann Rust-Tierney who is the director of the National Coalition to abolish the death penalty in which she had 30 years of experience. The other person who wishes the death penalty gone is Barry Scheck he is a professor at Cardozo School of law and the co-founder and co-director for the innocence project. Next, one of the men who are arguing to abolish the death penalty is Robert Blecker who is a New York law school professor, he spent a variety of years talking to prisoners, and visiting death row prisoners. Finally, his teammate is Kent Scheidegger he’s been a legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal foundation since 1986.

) 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

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

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?

Koch realizes this issue would be brought up by the opposing side and brings this along with other possible opposing arguments into hindsight. While bringing up arguments the opposing side has is helpful this issue brought up does not support his thesis of how the death penalty helps prisoners to affirm life. He does this by stating statistics from Hugo Adam Bedau, who Koch states is an “implacable foe” or relentless enemies of capital punishment in America. Bedau states, it is “False sentimentality to argue that the death penalty should be abolished because of the abstract possibility that an innocent person might be executed” (484). In laymen’s terms meaning, it is absurd to argue that we should abolish the death penalty because society has an unreasonable tenderness towards the thought of an innocent person being executed, when the chance of this happening has no concrete existence. Koch then goes on to state statistics that have been cited by Badeu mentioning that there has been, “ Seven thousand executions in his country from 1892 to 1971”, which “concludes that the record fails to show that such cases occur” (485). While I agree with both Koch and Badeu, I believe the evidence stated is not current enough to support what Koch is stating. Koch does not go into enough detail of who Hugo Adam Badeu is and why we would believe him to be credible. The statistics

In this paper, the authors examine how the death penalty argument has changed in the last 25 years in the United States. They examine six specific issues: deterrence, incapacitation, caprice and bias, cost innocence and retribution; and how public opinion has change regarding these issues. They argue that social science research is changing the way Americans view the death penalty and suggest that Americans are moving toward an eventual abolition of the death penalty.

Some may argue that the death penalty deter criminals since they are likely to choose life over death. Based on Dr. William Schmitz point of view, “the death penalty should be kept and not dragged out of 20 years, and the insanity defense should be thrown out” (“In defense of death…”). While the insanity plea is an easy escape for criminals, the death penalty still does not discourage criminals from committing crimes once again. According to Jones, “in 1997 the average murder rate per 100,000 population among death-penalty states was 6.6, while for non-death penalty states it was 3.5” (Jones). If the death penalty is suppose to serve as a deterrent, then there should have been a cumulative effect in lowering the homicide rates. However, most criminals rarely consider the consequences while engaged in their crimes. Informed by the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, “from 1995-1999, states without the death penalty had a 45 percent lower average homicide rate than the states with the death penalty” (Belousek). The only public good that this system brings to society is that it serves momentary justice. Lives taken by criminals

To begin with, capital punishment continues to be seen "as a strong deterrent for serious crimes" (Siegel and Senna, 2007). The argument in this case is that the more

The punishment for murder is getting to be shorter and shorter. A judge could sentence a man to life in prison. That same man could be out of jail with 15 years. How has life in jail become known as ten to fifteen years? If the judge says life with no parole, then the criminal could stay in jail a bit longer, but that would mean the state and it's voters would have to take care of the prisoner for twenty to twenty five years. How can we trust the murderers and thieves of our country to a judicial system that will either let them out in ten years or have us take care of them for twenty years, and then let them go? The criminals do not fear the punishment anymore, because they know they will not die. Punishment is meant to give justice to the wrongdoer and to keep him from doing it again. I am not saying we execute all of the criminals in the world, but it has to remain an option for the courts to use and to scare the criminals of the country. Many criminals don't fear the judicial system. They know that they will get out in ten years if they murder someone. They