Death Penalty Response Paper

483 Words2 Pages
Conrado Valido Frederick Knowles English Composition: Response Paper 11 February 2011 The Death Penalty According to David Bruck, “neither justice nor self-preservation demands that we kill men” and I beg to differ. Death penalty is considered as a controversial topic today. Death penalty is the best way to bring justice because it is cheap, it serves as justice for the victims, and it gives a higher regard to the victim’s suffering in the hands of the murderer. Although some people oppose death penalty saying it is immoral and a waste of life, it is still the best way to bring justice to the victims of heinous crimes. Death penalty is the best way to bring justice because it is cheap. The government can save a lot of money with death penalty. When prisoners get sentenced to death, taxpayers would not have to pay tax to supply the needs of the prisoners who did a heinous crime. Instead of using the money to sustain murderers, the money could be use in many other projects that can help the citizens of the United States. We can use the money to make roads and give the budget to financial aid, towards education, and projects for the future of the country. We do not have to pay for these killers and murderers. Death penalty serves justice for the victims of these heinous crimes. If someone takes a life of another person with no reason, that person deserves to die too. If that person values his/her life, he/she should not take another person’s life. The idealism “eye for an eye” works in this topic. Without penalty, our justice system is a failure. It would fail to bring justice to the victims who died because of these murderers. Our justice system is built to justly punish and bring justice to victims. As a response to David Bruck’s essay opposing death penalty; he was saying that death penalty is cruel and unjust but quite the contrary happens.

More about Death Penalty Response Paper

Open Document