The Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty

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.

The death penalty has been a truly controversial topic in the past decade. Many different states having debates whether it is a constitutional punishment or if it violates the Eighth Amendment. There are thirty-one states that have decided that it is a just capital punishment and nineteen states have decided it contradicts the Constitution. That the death penalty violates the right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment(“Death Penalty Information Center). Although, there has been a significant decrease in the past years of people being sentenced the death penalty as states start to review the death penalty. Some state’s have also started to forbid their healthcare practitioners from taking part in the death penalty as it contradicts the Hippocratic Oath. As is the case in North Carolina, where someone who has committed a violent crime can still be sentenced to the death penalty, but because North Carolina uses the method of lethal injection they cannot execute those on death row. This is due to North Carolina healthcare professionals being barred from partaking in the death penalty. This can cause problems such as overcrowding as well as have negative effects to the prisoners, the families of the victims and on society.

The world has had the death penalty around for a long time, doing justice. Criminals who are on death row are obviously there for a reason, and it is almost always because of the crimes they have committed against the public. If we chose to let them live a life sentence out in jail, they will waste away and die as it is. The death penalty is not a crime in the world, or the country, it is a savior.

“An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” is how the phrase goes. Belonging to Hammurabi’s code, this ancient motto has become the basis of a great political debate over the past few decades - the death penalty (US History). The legal definition of the death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is a sentence of execution for murder, treason, and other capital crimes, which are punishable by death (Legal Information Institute). This is an issue that has the United States quite divided. While there are many supporters of the death penalty, there is also a large amount of opposition. Currently, there are thirty-two states in which the death penalty is legal and there are eighteen states that have abolished it (Death Penalty Information Center).

The death penalty has been a debatable subject for many years. Violence is only getting worse

The Death penalty can be used in multiple different situations, treason, murder, drive-by shooting, genocide, kidnapping-murder. The death penalty. Also referred to as the capital punishment. It is mainly used for the murder of one or more people. Currently, it is not used in California, which could be seen as good or bad. It is illegal mainly because it is unconstitutional, it violates the 8th amendment, where it says ¨Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted¨. It states that there are no cruel or unjust punishments. By using the death penalty they will never be able to right their wrong, once it is used they can never go back. The penalty for robbing is not to be

A numerous amount of innocent people have been put to death in our history. The death penalty has been around for centuries therefore, there must have been millions of people that were highly accused before even proven guiltless. However, humanity has been this way since the beginning of time, starting with the crucifixion, which was still an execution that was ordered. I assume that there have been many diverse methods in the past and not enough testing that would reveal the truth of each person’s case. Lynching that occurred, especially in the south is brutally remembered till this day because of how many innocent people were hurt. This later resulted with lethal injection and it has been known that in history some individual cases were still not complete in the court of law before the person was already put to rest.

The death penalty has been a heated discussion for a very long time. A lot of people feel like if someone does something that is way over the top, then they have to face the consequences, and face the death penalty. Some people think that the death penalty is way too harsh, and we should punish them in a different way. Either way you think about it, there are positives and negatives to both sides. The death penalty is illegal in 18 states, but 32 states in America still have the death penalty, although rarely used. There are a lot of factors that need to be talked through before sentencing a punishment so serious. Once you sentence something like this, you can't change your mind, and you can't take it back. Usually someone that is going to get this sentence has killed multiple people, or did something really terrible to get themselves in that situation. The death penalty was first brought up somewhere around the Eighteenth Century, and has been around ever since then. I think that there are both good and bad arguments as to whether we should keep the death penalty or not, and they should be thought about very carefully before you sentence anyone to death

Should we as Americans be the ones to judge someone to death? That is what happens every time that a criminal is sentenced to death. The death penalty is a major debate that Americans have faced for many years. Who are we though to commit a crime against one who committed the wrongful crime? Doesn’t this make us just as guilty as the criminal? Through this paper we will explore the pros, cons, and whether the death penalty serves to morally normalize society.

The death penalty is both a relevant and interesting topic of discussion as it serves as both a moral and ethical question, yielding many different and opposing opinions. The topic of the death penalty is one that will produce a multitude of differing opinions, resulting in a lot of interesting debate and conversation at the discussion sections. The death penalty, specifically the use of the electric chair, has brought up a lot of debate in the US, as certain states have gone as far as to ban it altogether, whilst others practice it regularly. The death penalty can be beneficial by helping to handle the overcrowding at prison facilities, as well as providing justice to families of victims. With the continuous advancements in technology, DNA testing has become increasingly more accurate and can effectively decipher whether one is guilty or innocent to avoid executing the wrong person. However, there are many negative associations with the death penalty, many being on the issue of moral standards. Many argue that the use of the death penalty goes against the Bill of Rights violation of “Cruel and unusual punishments”, as the death penalty could be seen as both. Despite the strong moral standings against the death penalty, many are also against it because of its extremely expensive cost. Taxpayers are forced to pay several times more money to place an inmate on death row and execute them, than it would cost to keep the inmate in prison for life. Because of this, many are

In the United States, the argument on whether the death penalty is constitutional or un constitutional stands strongly. While there are many supporters of it, there will always be some opposing the death penalty. As of today, there are thirty one states allowing the death penalty and nineteen states who have abolished it (Pennekamp). For the worst crimes, the death penalty is the more appropriate sentence, for many reasons. My stance for the death penalty is not only for the sympathy of the victims or victims’ families but include deterrence of crime, retribution, and morality. The opposing arguments in my case do not hold up, which includes myself refuting the ideas that the death penalty is unconstitutional.

Although some do believe that we should take a life for a life taken, the death penalty isn’t the best option. The death penalty is a capital punishment where a person is put to death. Not only is the death penalty a very expensive process, but also, many lives that are taken are found to be innocent. Also, many find the death penalty more inviting than to have life in prison without parole.

In an interview with the Death Penalty Information Center, associate justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. said, “Perhaps the bleakest fact of all is that the death penalty is imposed not only in a freakish and discriminatory manner, but also in some cases upon defendants who are actually innocent (Dieter).” In every case of the death penalty, there is always a small percentage of chance that the victim might be innocent. As described by the Justice Brennan, the death penalty is terrified.

Occasionally, we are faced with moral dilemmas that force us to decide whether our absolute laws should really be unquestioned. The death penalty is the law put into question for this situation. People who are deemed mentally deficient are still susceptible to the death penalty, but there is a question as to whether the death penalty should really be applied against such people. In the journal by Philip Fougerousse, mental retardation, or deficiency, is defined in three parts, “first is subaverage intellectual functioning; second is significant limitations in adaptive skills (e.g., communication, self-care, and self-direction); and third, [is that] the symptoms must have manifested before the age of 18 years” (2003). With this definition in mind, the habits and demeanor of those diagnosed as mentally retarded differ from everyday individuals. As such the question comes to mind as to whether the death penalty should be applied to the mentally retarded. If they commit a crime, in which the death penalty is the consequence, should they be completely held accountable, if their mental retardation causes them to not understand that they are doing wrong? You could compare this to a child not understanding what they did wrong, and being punished severely without ever learning. Consequently, someone judged to be mentally retarded, should not be punished with the death penalty due to their lack of understanding, but should face different consequences.

The death penalty should be allowed to the criminal that truly need it; because of the justice system as well as to the victims who deserve closure, and because of the antisocial personity disorder. If one personal was a victim that got personally got hurt by a person who raped killed their loved ones, or harmed them by almost killing them, or killing them wouldn’t you want that person to get the justice they deserve? One would want to ensure that the death penalty is addressed to ensure the person doesn’t get a change to do it to other people. Furthermore, if the person had antisocial personality disorder they are people are called sociopaths, and psychopaths. one who want that person to get the death penalty, because those type of people are always going to kill people no matter what type of treatment is given to the person they will always have the habits to kill and have no emotion while doing it. If one thinks people like that should live are crazy. Finally, the criminal justice system most people trust and believe in the justice system and for most cases it provides the right DNA and put the right person in jail. Wouldn’t you want the right person to be put to justice with the death penalty? If given the opportunity to help prevent the person form doing it again would one want to do the right thing?