Also, the less that the death sentence is invoked, the more conflicting it becomes when it is actually used. Alternative can be found to substitute for the death penalty. A huge misconception of the death penalty is that it saves society the costs of keeping inmates imprisoned for long periods of time. Ironically, the cost of the death penalty is far greater than the cost of housing a criminal for life. Appeals on the death penalty become a long, drawn-out and very expensive process.
Mia Michael H.English Mrs. Gaskill April 23, 2013 An argument that never seems to have a clear winner is “Life in Prison” vs. “The Death Penalty”. Although both sides have valid points, I feel that only one should be allowed. The death penalty is inhumane and unethical. It seems hypocritical for us, the American people, and are judicial system to say that murder is wrong and illegal, but continue to murder both the guilty and thee wrongfully accused. The death penalty gives those that are actually guilty the easy way out of punishment, and the innocent a wrongful death.
Chance Martin Eng1113 12-2-13 Mr. Ladd Twelve angry men critique. Twelve angry men is the gripping, penetrating, and engrossing examination of a diverse group of twelve jurors ( all male, mostly middle-aged, white, and of middle class status) who are brought together to deliberate after hearing the facts in a seemingly open –and- shut murder trial case. They retire to a jury room to do their civic duty and serve up a just verdict for the indigent minority defendant (with a criminal record) whose life is in the balance. The film is a powerful indictment, denouncement and expose of the trial by jury system. The frightened, teenaged defendant is on trial, as well as the jury and the American judicial system with is purported sense of infallibility, fairness and lack of bias.
The death penalty is a great tool for the American justice system. Without it, criminals may have the opportunity to reoffend or commit other heinous crimes. The death penalty also saves the lives of what may be future victims by preventing these criminals from ever having the opportunity to commit another crime against innocent civilians. There are those who will argue that we are taking away their human rights to live. True, every human was born with human rights, but I believe if you take away someone else’s life, you give up your human rights.
Life without parole costs less than the death penalty (Marceau & Whitson, 2013). The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, mostly because of the upfront costs of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people. Many opponents of the death penalty argue that the millions of dollars saved by instituting life without parole could be used for education, drug and
Davis the name of number 8 juror tried to convince the members of the jury and he succeed to change their minds. Davis was smart and logically man, he started doubt the evidence by the switch knife. The jurors believed the knife belongs to the eighteen years old guy and he stabbed it in his father chest, Davis made his argument by said might the murder used another knife looked like the guy’s knife and he showed the jurors a knife looked like the knife was used to kill the man. After this argument the one of jurors #9 changed his vote to not guilty. After that #5 juror who had a problem to express his opinion, he changed his mind and vote for not guilty.
The death penalty is a lawful killing of a criminal and is not done by an individual but by the government. Congressmen should not abolish the death penalty because it leads to justice for the crime committed, less criminals, and innocent lives being saved. Congressmen might
More stress, chaos, and contact among inmates and staff. I believe this is a bad bill because of the increase in expenses. It is about $25,000 dollars to house one inmate per year. Just think about how much it will cost Government officials to house beyond over populated prisons. For example, if the maximum prison term for armed robbery is 15 years and that conviction is doubled, the city has to pay for an extra 15 years of housing to inmates.
Crime is an inevitable part of society, and everyone is aware that something must be done about it. Most people know the threat of crime to their lives, but the question lies in the methods and actions with which we deal with crime. From the time of Fourteenth Century crucifixion to Tenth Century British hanging to present-day American lethal injection, the death penalty has been apportioned to those who have committed a variety of offenses (“Death Penalty Information Center”). However, even though the death penalty seems to have been effective in the past, it does not mean it is still effective in modern times. Today, the death penalty is not only an extremely costly, unjustified, and discriminating form of capital punishment, but it is also an exceedingly immoral one that needs to be abolished immediately.
Solitary confinement would serve the same purpose. Stopping a prison inmate from committing another crime is as simple as placing him or her in solitary confinement and simply “throwing away the key.” Individuals are not deterred from committing crimes, or murder, because of the fear of receiving the death penalty. However, should the justice system be deterred from capital punishment because of cost? It is much cheaper to keep someone in prison for a lifetime than it is to put him or her to death. This is due to the legal issues that arise and the court costs.