I feel it adversely is shown and sought out to enhance the value of human life by demonstrating the old saying “an eye for an eye.” If government were to lower the penalty of murder it would portray that the victims’ loss of life was less significant than that of the murderer. Some opponents feel that a life sentence in prison is a far worse punishment than death. If this is true, then why do so many convicted prisoners put on death row try to appeal and get a lesser sentence? These prisoners who committed the same act outside prison walls are now facing death with no alternative, as their victim had, and aren’t ready to answer to the consequences. In the case of Stephanie Benton, I saw this with my own eyes.
The fact remains the same someone has lost their life so the person responsible needs to be punished and the punishment should fit the crime. Our society should not abolish the death penalty simply because of rocky statistics. Americans have to keep the death penalty in place because it isn’t worth finding out if all the statistics are correct or incorrect. Please help fight to keep the death penalty a lawful punishment in the United States and bring it back to every state. It’s the only way to keep people from committing these horrible acts against innocent human beings.
The death penalty should only be acted upon if there is absolutely no doubt that the guilty has committed the crime. This would rid us of these horrible people permanently. Who no longer have any purpose or contribution to society. Of course miscarriage of justices have happened in the past but I believe due to advances in forensic policing (D.N.A.) and CCTV etc.
Some people simply enjoy torturing others and are proud to do so. When torture is used as a method of punishment, this is simply wrong. There are humane ways we have in place in America to take care of criminals, and the rest of the world should follow our example. If a person commits murder, he goes to prison and is put on death row, if a terrorist is captured, he gets the same. There is no need or justification to torture these individuals.
Along with doing nothing to minimize criminal activity the death penalty actually desensitizes the public to what were previously viewed an heinous acts making them more socially accepted and considered a normal part of life. A popular belief is that if capital punishment is instituted criminals are less likely to kill because there is higher stakes, nonetheless this is another fallacy to the claim of deterrence. Individuals who commit utterly odious crimes “act out a range of narcissistic and infantile impulses---rage, perverted self-loathing, or a grandiose conviction they’ll never be caught---in which consequences have no roll” (60). A substantial amount of perpetrators are unstable, emotionally incapable, and lack the ability to rationalize a situation in an intense setting which leads to the disregard of possible outcomes for a drastic
The Shame of Torture “The use of torture on suspected terrorists after 9/11 has already earned a place in American history's hall of shame” (Weisberg 1). Going to torture it’s like taking the easy way out of interrogating the suspect. When torturing the suspect either will not speak up or they will just wait till they get tortured enough to die. Once the world stops using torture as an answer it will forever be dark and cruel. When the world thinks of interrogating they just go straight to torture, but when they craw away from that, there would be no enemies due because of their grudges toward countries.
This would make them a serial killer. It is important to catch these criminals and put them behind bars for sure, but is it enough to sentience them to death? Also with all the killing what are the homicide rates telling us? My personal opinion about the death penalty in Illinois is that it is a good thing that it is band, because morally I do not believe a killing should be punishable by another killing. Just like the old saying two wrong don’t make a right.
However, if there is someone’s life at risk, mistakes are not a good idea. The death penalty is a form of murder performed on the government’s behalf. As the United Nations, we have taken pleasure in our government with its truth and justice. It is sad to know that we, as people, consider our government fair, yet the same rules that apply to us do not apply for them. If someone kills a person he or she will be punished, but the government can kill people not only without punishment, but it is also enforced.
As noted in “Apology”, Socrates is trying to defend himself and explain his behavior to the jurymen as he states “I must surely defend myself and attempt to uproot from your minds in so short a time the slander that has resided there so long” (22). Socrates discards exile and prison, and offers to pay a fine only to find out that the jury rejected his proposal and had sentenced him to death. Socrates was against this at first, but then he gives in as he states “He assesses the penalty at death. So be it” (38) because he had decided that he shouldn’t fear something that he has never witnessed before, in this case, death. In “Crito”, Crito comes up with two arguments on the ethical level: if Socrates gave into death, he is helping his foes win by giving in to what they want and he would be leaving behind his sons and family.
I feel bad that the man had to change the way he walked, talked and acted to make sure no one accused him or thought of him as a murder or thief. I think it is quite pathetic how people are so judgmental on black people. Even though this story took place between the late 1970s and 1980s, accusing someone of something just from there looks is just unacceptable. If I were in the shoes of this man whom was constantly stared at by others, and accused of wrong doings of which he didn't even commit, I would not change a thing about my self. God made us the way we are, he made us look the way we look, talk the way we talk, and walk the way we walk, and for that reason I believe no one should change them selves for the happiness of others.