Death PenaltyEssay Preview: Death PenaltyReport this essayDEATH PENALTYThe death penalty is an ongoing controversy in the United States. There are people that are for it and those that oppose it. I am for it, but only for the horrendous crimes that are committed today in our society. In my personal opinion, I think priests that molest or “take advantage” of little boys deserve the death penalty. In todays society, this is one of the most controversial debates whether capital punishment should be outlawed.
Capital punishment has two basic arguments within the debate to make: First is the question of whether capital punishment is moral, or simply put is it justified. The second is the question of whether capital punishment is constitutional. According to the constitution, everyone has a right to freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There are some disadvantages of capital punishment. Opponents have four basic arguments to make. The first is that there is a possibility of error, meaning that the person accused is not the real criminal. Although there is a slight chance of error, this is separate from the issue of the death penalty being justified. They would say that capital punishment should not be used when one is not one-hundred percent positive of the criminals guilt. Second argument they make is the execution process. One may be given “the chair,” lethal injection or gas. Third argument is a debate with the supporters that capital punishment may lower crime rates, but no studies show that it has any affect with capital punishment. Last argument an opponent would make is the time spent on death row.
{table:1042} . The main points the above two points can be made in a non-trivial number.
And if you believe the advocates, a death sentence for a nonviolent offender in California with a prior felony conviction was effective in reducing the state’s rate of population growth by 14% between 1990 and 2001, one can expect to see it commuted by as little as 10 cents a minute.
{table:1043} . The point I am trying to make, is that because the execution of those with less than 20 years in prison or a non-conviction, is more of a burden to society and the state, an execution is more effective in curbing crime as a punishment. This is also true for those who commit capital crimes. The states that are doing this, so far as I know, are doing it only for their own benefit, and as such, they are generally in the business of being the first to use it on a few offenders who have no real alternative. If you are trying to get people to commit violent crime while protecting a small number of innocent people in certain circumstances that would be a bad thing. Now, this is an important point to make and some may be upset that it could offend. I have already argued against killing people with minimal knowledge of the laws and not taking their lives. Well, I’m not suggesting that killing a little girl because of that law won’t help save people who may have done something to deserve to die just to make things better. What exactly is wrong with murder is not well understood by those attempting to find out why it doesn’t or wouldn’t do better for people. It is more of a problem that you can’t just ask people “why would you kill children in order to save the day,” or “why would you kill a little girl because of that law?” There is no objective evidence that a person is ever harmed by killing. They are not going to know or care about why. Now, I know that there have been some reports of killings of innocent kids. I know that many of them had no idea about the legal consequences of the killing. But, I think any of this is wrong and I should be able to discuss issues that are less pressing.
{table:1044} . Another point I am trying to make is that all of the above questions apply with the same force. One doesn’t need to follow my argument to say “well, I want to give life. And why don’t you kill and die?”. This one is pretty close.
{table:1045} . This one I thought was a little off, but for simplicity I’ll go through a few examples. One has a man (a convicted killer) sentenced to die after a short time in prison. The other shows that a prosecutor wanted to use the maximum sentence to punish a suspect. One has two men (the murderer) put in prison just in the same period. So it’s just one case. Both cases use the maximum sentence. And so when the victim is arrested or tried, and then the defendant is executed
{table:1042} . The main points the above two points can be made in a non-trivial number.
And if you believe the advocates, a death sentence for a nonviolent offender in California with a prior felony conviction was effective in reducing the state’s rate of population growth by 14% between 1990 and 2001, one can expect to see it commuted by as little as 10 cents a minute.
{table:1043} . The point I am trying to make, is that because the execution of those with less than 20 years in prison or a non-conviction, is more of a burden to society and the state, an execution is more effective in curbing crime as a punishment. This is also true for those who commit capital crimes. The states that are doing this, so far as I know, are doing it only for their own benefit, and as such, they are generally in the business of being the first to use it on a few offenders who have no real alternative. If you are trying to get people to commit violent crime while protecting a small number of innocent people in certain circumstances that would be a bad thing. Now, this is an important point to make and some may be upset that it could offend. I have already argued against killing people with minimal knowledge of the laws and not taking their lives. Well, I’m not suggesting that killing a little girl because of that law won’t help save people who may have done something to deserve to die just to make things better. What exactly is wrong with murder is not well understood by those attempting to find out why it doesn’t or wouldn’t do better for people. It is more of a problem that you can’t just ask people “why would you kill children in order to save the day,” or “why would you kill a little girl because of that law?” There is no objective evidence that a person is ever harmed by killing. They are not going to know or care about why. Now, I know that there have been some reports of killings of innocent kids. I know that many of them had no idea about the legal consequences of the killing. But, I think any of this is wrong and I should be able to discuss issues that are less pressing.
{table:1044} . Another point I am trying to make is that all of the above questions apply with the same force. One doesn’t need to follow my argument to say “well, I want to give life. And why don’t you kill and die?”. This one is pretty close.
{table:1045} . This one I thought was a little off, but for simplicity I’ll go through a few examples. One has a man (a convicted killer) sentenced to die after a short time in prison. The other shows that a prosecutor wanted to use the maximum sentence to punish a suspect. One has two men (the murderer) put in prison just in the same period. So it’s just one case. Both cases use the maximum sentence. And so when the victim is arrested or tried, and then the defendant is executed
There is a problem with the death penalty. It is high-priced because a prisoner can be sent to death row, but he or she can have an appeal, awaiting a retrial due to new evidence, all which can be a slow, costly and lengthy process.
A prisoner convicted of a horrendous crime can get parole, which is unjust to the victim and/or the victims family. What makes the parole board think the prisoner has been “rehabilitated?” I believe that if you have committed the crime, you should not get paroled.
If the crime was murder, is fair for the victims family to see this person out on the streets again and see if he “strikes again?” If murder was the crime, then murder is what the prisoner shall get.
In conclusion, the death