The Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty In Britain

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” This Amendment outlaws the federal government from implementing unreasonably harsh penalties on criminal defendants which includes the cost of pretrial release or the penalty of a serious crime (Stinneford & Stevenson, 2016). The penalty of a serious crime usually consists of imprisonment for two or more years. However, a serious crime may also include the death sentence in some cases, such as murder. Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is defined by the process of sentencing convicted offenders to death lead by the statutes enforced by Congress or any legislative authority (U.S. Department of Justice, 1979).

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?

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 has been around for centuries. It dates back to when Hammurabi had his laws codified; it was “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Capital punishment in America started when spies were caught, put on trial and hung. In the past and still today people argue that, the death penalty is cruel, unusual punishment and should be illegal. Yet many people argue that it is in fact justifiable and it is not cruel and unusual. Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual; the death penalty is fair and there is evidence that the death penalty deters crime. 
A big part of abolitionist’s argument is that the death penalty is not humane. They pull in Amendment 8, “…nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” What the victim went though was indeed “cruel and unusual punishments’.” The murderers’ death is not cruel. The people will demand justice for what he or she has done (Bidinotto 19). Hanging and the electric chair are topics more reasonable to argue, but now because of lethal injection capital punishment has become more humane. The death penalty is not barbaric, the pain and agony that the victim went through is barbaric. Abolitionists were very upset in 1996 when rapist and murderer John Albert Taylor was executed by firing squad; they said his death was barbaric (Feder 32). Charla King, the poor 11-year-old girl he raped and strangled with a telephone cord, her death was barbaric! It makes no sense to think that John Taylor’s’ death was barbaric or inhumane. He

Criminals are sadly a part of our society and have been since the beginning of time, and it is our job as members of society to make sure the criminals are punished for breaking the law. One way of punishing victims is sentencing them to death. This cruel punishment is known as the death penalty and it is defined as when the government takes the life of a person as punishment for the crime the individual has committed. For thousands of years, the death penalty was an acceptable form of punishment, but over the course of a hundred years, it has become less acceptable and for a good reason. The death penalty has been abolished in many countries including, Canada and England while it is still legal in the United States and China. Within the United States, each state has the right to decide whether or not they proceed with the death penalty and a majority of the states still have the death penalty in place. The death penalty has become a less acceptable form of punishment because it has many downfalls and it should be abolished in America.

death penalty costs more, delivers less and puts innocent lives at risk. many cases of death penalty are not fair because that person was in reality innocent and what will they do then, they wont be able to bring that person back. if they take out parole in consideration everything will be much better because if it turns out that person is innocent they can just let them go and get the guilty one in. not in every case is the same thing but it will help in case it does happen. life without parole provides swift, serve, and certain punishment. If death penalty wouldve solved everything then there wouldnt be more deaths in the world, they say its a crime to kill people, but they are the ones killing. By them wasting so much money in that they are

How would the average person react to the thought of most things they believed were true about how unfair and racist the criminal laws were wrong? There may have been some complications throughout, causing changes in the death penalty and criminal laws in the U.S., but everyone has taken guidance from the historic use of it. The general belief is unlikely to change, but an extensive number of the social influence can contribute to criminal law and make the government reconsider what laws they are enforcing. The Death Penalty is an equal, fair way to convict someone since it takes in the opinions of others for consideration.

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.

The death penalty possesses a highly complicated legal process. This process has a high cost in the pre-trial and trial phase which makes the death penalty economically unstable method of punishment. Therefore, the death penalty should only be reserved for the rarest of the rare cases.

Everyday an inmate is taken to death row, or the punishment is threatened. Consequently, over half of the United States carry out one of the five main methods of execution - the most common being lethal injection. The approximate number of states using the death penalty is thirty-one (“What’s New”) As of October 25, 2017, there were eight executions still in progress before the end of the year - twenty-one executions have already been carried out in the year 2017 (“What’s New”). Every year less death penalties take place; however, lethal injection is an unethical method, and is a practice of humiliation. The death penalty is an unconstitutional and immoral punishment that should be banned in all states as a use of penalization.

Is the death penalty really the answer? Even though the criminal deserves the punishment of death, it is not always what a person deserves because death is the easy way out of the crime and the methods of killing are cruel. Some people feel that the Death Penalty should be broadened to cases such as rape, child molesters, etc.

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.

Those who believe that deterrence rationalizes the execution of offenders hold the responsibility of proving that the death penalty is deterrent. We assume that the fear of receiving justice for one's actions will deter murder. If this were true, then people would not sell/abuse drugs or even speed on the highway for the fear of being prosecuted for their actions. There is overwhelming evidence and years of studies that prove that the death penalty is no more of a hindrance than a life sentence to prison. Most supporters of the death penalty place little weight on deterrence as a serious justification as a continued use.

A homicidal maniac should be punished, not with a life sentence, but death. The death penalty should be allowed in all of the fifty states, criminality is unacceptable. It sets an example for anyone else that would possibly break the law. Furthermore, a dead convict couldn’t commit more crimes in prison, which would only add more years to their life sentence. Lastly, it gives the victim’s acquaintances a sense of justice for their dead, injured, or any way of loss loved ones.

Is it moral to execute guilty criminals? And most importantly is it moral of us to execute innocent people? Society in California, views punishment as a norm. It is given to criminals whom committed deviant acts. In California, the punishment for capital crime like murder is the death penalty. The morality view behind the death penalty is that murder goes against morals. Giving the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment which violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. The death penalty was first established in the Eighteenth Century B.C.. In the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon, the death penalty was given for 25 different crimes. During the Great Depression in the 1930s, America had more executions than any other decade. Since 1976, there have been 1,392 people who have been executed (DPIC, Death). There are currently 2,905 people on death row waiting for their execution date. The state of California has the highest number of death row inmates. There are currently 741 people sitting on death row in California alone. Now in the Twenty-First century there are states that have repealed the death penalty and replaced it with life in prison without parole. The death penalty is not carried out effectively. Therefore, it should be repealed in California; the death penalty is always cruel, discriminatory, and has condemned innocent people to die.