July 7 2011
Should the death penalty be mandatory for people that kill other people?
Should the death penalty be mandatory for people that kill other people? The death penalty is a controversial subject that has been debated by the pros and the cons for many years. There are 7 types of capital punishment that is used today in the world, and they are hanging, firing squad, electric chair, poisonous gas, lethal injection, stoning, and guillotine. The Pros are for the death penalty and everything that it stands for to make our society a safe place. Then the cons are against the use of this method stating that there is other ways to make a safe society for us to live in that does not use this type of extreme violence. After researching the pros and the cons both sides make good evaluations of the use or nonuse of the death penalty in our society. So the question that we are going to try to answer is should the death penalty be mandatory for people that kill other people.
To start with the Supreme Court in 1972 said that under the laws then “the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty…constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (The Case Against The Death Penalty Page 1).” This is because of the brutal way in which some of the death penalties are carried out, and depending on where you are at in the United States could change the method in which the penalty is carried out. Then four years later the court moved to a pro-choice for the death penalty say that it did not infringe upon constructional rights. The con-choice says that the death penalty shows the earliest times of penology that was used in the early days of slavery. If the convicted is put to death then he does not have the chance to find new evidence, and the chance to have the death penalty set aside on the new evidence.
The cons look at the death penalty and why they are...