The Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty

That question is a debate that has been occuring for years. The supreme court has previously ruled that the dealth penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment there for it is not violating the eighth amendment in any way. Despite how the supreme court has ruled the death penalty, there is still many arguments till this day on whether or not it should fall under cruel and unusual punishment. In 1972, the case Furman V. Georgia was brought in front of the supreme court to rule whether or not they believed the dealth penality was cruel and unusual. This case almost ruled out the death penalty, but that didn't last very long. In 1976, the case Gregg V. Georgia came in front of the Supreme Court and the earlier decision was changed because a majority vote believed that the dealth penalty was not cruel and unusual. Eventually four principals were established to decided whether or not punishment was cruel and unusual. The four questions were, is it degrading to human dignity? Is it arbitary? Is it rejected throughout society? Is it unnecessary? Which many states ended up believing that the death penalty were along the lines of those four principals. Clayton Lockett might be a tragic example of the death penalty going bad. He was getting injected, but the injection didn't kill him up until an hour after it was injected. He had to sit there and suffer and many would of

     The death penalty is absolutely outrageous. There is no real reason that the government should feel that it has the right to execute people. Capital punishment is murder just as much as the people being executed murdered. The is no need for the death penalty and it needs to be abolished. It goes against the Constitution which states that there will be no cruel and unusual punishment. There is nothing crueler than killing a person.

Throughout mankind has been using the death penalty as a form of punishment. Many people argue with this type of punishment because they believe in an eye for an eye. Many people that it is okay to murder a human being due to them having killed an individual over time. There have been many cases that have proven that they death penalty violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, being very expensive, and innocent lives are convicted.

The death penalty is a cruel and inhuman death, “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Death penalty violates the right to life. (2004)

The death penalty is a controversial topic that has been brought to the United States Supreme Court many times. According to the Oxford dictionary, the death penalty is the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime . Usually the death penalty is administered for murder, attempted murder, or intent to kill. It started off being administered by hanging, but then evolved to the electric chair and is now administered through lethal injection. From 1940 to 2014, approximately 3,771 people have been legally executed in the United States. Throughout the years, many things have been determined about the death penalty. The first being that it violates human rights. The second is that innocent lives cannot be brought back. And the third is the large possibility of a biased jury. There have been many cases that support these three points which I will address later. So, based on Supreme Court rulings, the death penalty is unconstitutional and should not continue to be legal.

The death penalty is a good source of punishment because if a person commits a murder they deserves to be punished. However, the death penalty is cruel, inhuman and degrading. The death penalty disregards the eight amendment; which states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (U.S Constitution). The death penalty is unconstitutional because it violation of the eight Amendment. The death penalty serves as a double negative. Why kill someone for committing a murder? The death penalty does not solve the crime, fix the problems that were caused by the crime, or teach anyone a lesson. Not only does the death penalty violate the eight amendment it also violates basic human rights.

During the year of 1608, the first recorded execution took place, killing Captain George Kendall. Since that moment, as the United States of America expanded, the death penalty became part of the law. Killing 1465 criminals since 1796, the death penalty has kept numerous crimes from happening. The death penalty is supported by the victim of the crime’s family, follows the “eye for an eye” rule, is a deterrent of crimes and should not be abolished.

Capital Punishment is not a fair choice to do and it violates the human right to life. Everyone is born with the human right to life, even those who commit any type of crime; sentencing a person to death and executing them violates that right ( ). Just because a murderer killed someone, it does not mean their life should be taken away for punishment. It is generally accepted that people should not be punished for their actions unless they are guilty ( ). Whether the person is guilty is guilty or not they should not be given a deadly punishment. He inmates should just be locked up in prison and die from natural causes. When the prisoner becomes executed it is painful and cruel.

Many call the death penalty inhumane, and a large number of countries no longer execute criminals. However, the U.S. has kept capital punishment because it deters criminals from committing murders that place them in the position of the death penalty. However, the death penalty is wrong. No one deserves to have their life taken away by another human, even if they are guilty of murder.

The death penalty is something that has been debated for many years, as people wonder whether carrying out the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The definition of cruel and unusual punishment includes deliberately degrading punishment, such as torture or a punishment that is to sever for the crime committed. I believe the death penalty to be inhumane and unnecessary no matter the circumstances. Whether how horrible acts of the criminals are I feel the death penalty is unethical. Clearly, those in favor of the death penalty see the world through the saying “an eye for an eye” or the justification from the idea of retribution. Retribution is like justice such as people are punished because they deserved to be punished

It is wrong in every way; it is unfair in every way. The death penalty punishes minorities, it punishes the poor. Once a minority is convicted, their case has practically already been settled since people of poor backgrounds do not get the competent lawyer they need to even fight against their case. Instead of following such an unjust system, let us follow a system in which we do not have to kill people for what they did wrong. There are so much better alternatives in punishing criminals. For example, in every state that retains the death penalty, jurors have the option of sentencing convicted capital murderers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The sentence is cheaper to tax-payers and keeps violent offenders off the streets for good. Unlike the death penalty, a sentence of Life Without Parole also allows mistakes to be corrected, since you do not have time to reflect on your act once you die. It is much more effective and ethical since we do not have to taint blood on those who execute others with the people they are forced to

The death penalty being inhumane is something that we as a society should not associate with each other. The victims in these cases usually are brutally murdered with no emotion and thought for the torture they endure, this in itself is inhumane. Any normal functioning human could not cause harm to their fellow man without the thought of

Desmond Tutu once said, "To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice." This statement has many people questioning the type of “justice” that the federal government demonstrates. Capital punishment is easily defined as killing someone for committing a crime. Murder is the killing of one person by another. The only difference between an executioner and a murderer is that an executioner has “permission” from the law to take the life of another person. The United States of America has been executing people for crimes since the founding of the original colonies; however, how justifiable is each execution? Capital punishment is not an effective way of ensuring justice is done.

In all ways the death penalty is acceptable, effective, is what is necessary to keep citizens safe and criminals in check. Capital punishment is not cruel, is not inhumane and there are no options. All societies have used it and it had been

The death penalty is unconstitutional and violates the eighth and fourth amendments. The Eighth Amendment was put in place to prevent the government from excessively