The Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty

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?

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.

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.

) 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

BODY 3- Statistics show, the people who have previously committed a crime when released will reoffend. According to Australian Institute of criminology 60% of those in custody in Australia have been imprison before. Some people believe life imprisonment without parole the offender may no longer be a danger to society, but they can remain a danger to prison staff and other inmates. What’s stopping criminals from committing further crimes within the prison if they are already receiving the maximum punishment? Prison isn’t an option in this

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?

I understand that some people think it’s justice but it’s really not. The way to make that person who has done something bad suffer is to let them sit in prison and rot. They will then have a long time to think about the crime or crimes that they had committed. Some people feel that if one don’t get the death penalty they are considered free but that is not the case. Just cause they are not put to death doesn’t mean they are free. They still have to sit in prison and deal with what they have done. To me I think that the death penalty should just be eliminated

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.

Many criminals take the lives of or hurt many people around them. They are later released after doing time in prisons to go on the streets again where they will do the same things over again. "[W]e reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers. To sentence killers like those described above to less than death would fail to do justice because the penalty – presumably a long period in prison – would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime. Prosecutors, jurors, and the loved ones of murder victims understand this essential point…” Death penalty does the justice right for seriously violent criminals instead of having them do time in prisons to be released.

Capital punishment has been recorded since colonial times. The first death sentence by firing squad was carried out at the Jamestown colony on an alleged spy. The practice was suspended by the Supreme Court in 1972. The last execution before this period was in 1967, before being reinstated in 1976. The new death penalty was tweaked, barring execution for rape, and now mitigating and aggravating factors were considered. While imposition of the death penalty was now less common than before, it should never have been brought back. Life without parole is a more viable option. It costs millions less and also ensures that the public is protected while eliminating the risk of any fatal mistake in the judicial process. Proponents seek capital punishment in more emotionally charged trials than anything. It is more of a witch hunt than the pursuit of justice. An eye for and eye is revenge, and nothing more. Revenge sometimes looks like justice, but these two things are not interchangeable.

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.

Capital Punishment is defined as the “legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime”. This is also known as the Death Penalty. The death penalty has been an ongoing debate in the United States since as early as the colonial period. Most people including myself are for the death penalty for many reasons. The death penalty provides closure for victims; it is a warning to other criminals because it acts as a deterrent. I believe criminals should face consequences for their actions (an eye for an eye). I will later compare and contrast two great philosophers known as Jeffery Reiman and van der Haag. These two philosophers have two opposing theories regarding Capital Punishment.

Not only do people get sent to the death row for committing an harmful crime but innocent people get sent there as well. Although that is not their intentions to send them they don’t find out to later on that the person who got executed was not really the person who has committed the crime. Since 1973 at least 140 people have been released from death row due to their innocence. If prisoners were just sentenced to life in prison and later found out that they were innocent we will be able to try and make its mends then putting that person to the death row and not being able to bring that person back for their innocence. Once an inmate is executed nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake was made.

The death penalty is not only inhumane but too easy for these criminals that deserve it. The life sentence is swift, severe and certain punishment according to The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, 2015). Sentencing someone to die in jail is a pragmatic alternative to public safety along with murder victims’ families to still provide them with justice. The death penalty can be consider the easy way out. Being only about 20 minutes of terror. The life sentence gets more justice out of the criminal, they have to sit in a cell for the

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.