The Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty

First, the death penalty has its ups and downs because they could kill again if the criminal is released or if he or she escapes prison. There have been cases where the criminal serves his/her time in prison, then gets released and then kills again. They usually do this for two reasons: committing crime is all they are accustom to or they never learned their lesson while behind bars. There have also been times where people have escaped prison and the only way they know they’ll get away is by killing anyone that gets in their way. Majority of the public believes that if the criminal gets out and kills again, it’s the justice systems fault because it’s their job to keep us safe.

A fifth rationale in opposition is that the death penalty is too expensive or too costly to taxpayers to justify its use. According to those who oppose the death penalty and certain studies, it costs more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life (Death Penalty Focus, 2015). Finally, it is believed by some that the killing at the hands of the state is not a righteous act but instead is on the same moral level as the murderers themselves.

     There are many reasons to both support and oppose the death penalty. Many people can feel very strongly about whether or not they approve of this method of punishment. I feel that the death penalty is wrong, and I believe that there is much support to back this up. I believe that the death penalty is wrong because it is not an effective deterrent, racially and economically bias, unreliable, expensive, and morally wrong of society.

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

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?

Capital punishment is a legal process where a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for crime. It has also been one of the biggest debated issues in modern society. Death penalty advocates argue that the execution of convicted murderers deter others from committing murder for fear that they will also be executed, and that murderers should be executed in retribution for their crimes and serve justice. In addition, they also argue that the death penalty will prevent the murders to commit additional killings. On the other hand, opponents of death penalty argue that few murders actually considers their eventual fate when committing murder, and that killing is always wrong whether its done by an individual or the state.

There are many pros and cons when discussing whether or not the death penalty should be used. Proponents in favor of the death penalty claim that it saves the government money by not forcing taxpayers to pay for the cost of housing inmates in prison, and help reduce prison overcrowding. Those who are in favor of the death penalty also believe that it is a reasonable punishment for those who commit heinous and violent crimes, and that use of the death penalty deters possible offenders. Also, some believe that it helps ease the mind of the victim’s family because they know that the offender will never harm anyone

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.

When it comes to ethical dilemmas, few are more polarizing and contentious for citizens of the USA as whether capital punishment should be used as a punishment for crime. Also known as the death penalty, the practice involves legally executing a criminal if they commit a crime of a certain level; most often, this punishment is prescribed to those who have murdered other people. Opponents and proponents of the death penalty have clashed for decades, often claiming differing results prove their respective sides to be superior in many areas. For example, those that support the death penalty claim that it is a cheaper punishment in financial terms than lifelong imprisonment without parole, while those that oppose capital punishment believe the exact opposite, stating that capital punishment is the more expensive of the two options. Additionally, there is a major rift between the two sides involving the effectiveness of the death penalty as a crime deterrent; opponents believe there is little to no beneficial effect, while supporters often declare that the death penalty has been proven to decrease murders and therefore saves lives. Moral positions also play a role in the debate; proponents view the punishment as a just way to punish someone who has committed a capital offense and a path towards closure for families of victims, while some on the other side hold that it is wrong to take a life regardless of what a person has done or that death is a cruel, extreme, unnecessary

“We oppose the death penalty for what it does to those guilty of heinous crimes, but for what it does to all of us; it offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life” by Joseph Fiorenza states that the death penalty is cruel and unjust. It may take lives of all those who are wrongfully convicted and may cost people millions of dollars. However, some may argue that the death of a criminal may bring closure to families of victims.

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 is a rather controversial topic, people tend to have a very strong opinion of being either for or against it. The reasons vary as to why a person is for or against the death penalty. Often those that oppose the death penalty argue for the sanctity of life, while proponents for the death penalty argue that it deters crime. The most convincing argument for the death penalty is retribution, the punishment must fit the crime.

Some statistics have shown that “one in eight people executed, they’ve found that at least one was convicted wrongfully” ( Cassell). This is evidence that mistakes have been made in capital punishment cases and it is wrong for someone innocent to pay the price of death. Those who are in agreement with death penalty will most likely argue that rape, murder, kidnapping or torture are all reasonable crimes which must be paid for. On the opposite side some people believe and live by the words and eye for an eye. People on the opposing side believe these criminals should pay with their lives as they had no consideration for the people they were harming.

Some people appose the death penalty because they believe it cost more to kill the person than to keep them in prison for life. If you put any thought into this at all, you will see that it is entirely wrong. If you put someone in jail for life, you have to feed them every single day, keep them sheltered, and take up the space in the jails. If you put someone to death, you don't have to worry about any of that. The cost of executions is far less than life in jail. Death penalty cases have alot of appeals, that cost alot of money, but life without parole cases have just about the same amount of appeals and cost just the same. When it comes down to it, putting the murderers in our country to death saves money, time, and space in our jails.