Taxpayers shouldn’t have pay for inmates just because they want to pursue a goal while they’re locked up. Prison isn’t a playpen, it’s a punishment. If private sponsors want to support them, that’s fine, but people shouldn’t have to reward a criminal for their mistakes. Perhaps the strongest argument against a death sentence is that innocent people can be and have been killed. In the movie “The Exonerated”, a film based on true events, the ordeals of six formerly condemned inmates are discussed, among them Sonia Jacobs, whose husband Jesse Tafero was wrongfully executed in 1990.
Every year hundreds of people are murdered while the criminal who did this horrible crime continues to live their life until they are put behind bars. When these murderers go to trial, they are either put in prison for live or they receive the death penalty. There are many people who believe that the death penalty is a violation of a person’s constitutional rights, but didn’t the person who committed the crime violate their victim’s constitutional rights? I believe in capital punishment and I believe that if you commit the crime you should be held responsible for your actions. The death penalty is a deterrent to crime and it ensures that the criminal will never have the chance to harm anyone ever again.
There is no excuse for someone to take a person’s life. According to Jessica Brooks, “Californians should advocate for the death penalty to remain a part of the legal system. We cannot reward those who clearly do not deserve it” (10). Many criminals are rewarded with a shorter sentenced for good behavior and later return to prison for the same allegations.
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.
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. What type of statement is this saying to American citizens or other countries, if we say this country will murder its own people? Not only that a country that supports the most horrible way to punish a person? Innocence and the Death Penalty states “The vast majority of countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice. The numbers are as follows: Abolitionist for all crimes: 96, Abolitionist for ordinary crimes: 9, Abolitionist in practice: 34, Total abolitionist in law or practice: 139, Retentions: 58” (Innocence and the Death Penalty).
These criminals deserve the worst death penalty for breaking American laws. They know that there are consequences and that they will get caught in the long run. Now many people argue if the death penalty is constitutional and there have been many controversies over the death penalty. Argument is: Whether the United States should keep this punishment or abolish it completely. Very few nations such as The United States, Iran, China, and other nations leave the death penalty as an option depending on the victim then there are a few other nations that completely abolished the law of killing someone by using the death penalty.
I think that trying to rehabilitate a very violent person is a waste of money. I also believe in the three strikes policy. If all states were harsher on criminals of violent crimes and all states had the death penalty maybe that would make these criminals choose to stop doing such violent crimes. If we had the death penalty in place for only murders or criminals who commit repeated violent crimes this would decrease the overcrowding in prisons. Why should law abiding citizens pay to keep criminals in prisons for the rest of their
God gave us life isn’t he the only one that should be able to take life away from us. However, supporters of capital punishment might argue that this kind of punishment is important for the family of the victim of a crime as it will bring them closure and the feeling that justice has been served. Nonetheless, there are some that feel that the death penalty is very bias and unfair. Some feel that those sentenced to the death penalty are those that are mentally ill, poor, males, and racial minorities that are over-represented among those executed. One pilot study of over 2 dozen convicted criminals on death row found that all had been so seriously abused during childhood that they probably all suffered from brain damage.
McGurruth Miguel Instructor A.D. Ulm EN 120A/ 03 23 November 2012 Did you ever wonder why we need death penalty in Pohnpei? Pohnpei really need to have this type of punishment to make its citizens to stop committing crimes. If Pohnpei state will not have this it will get out of control so we must adapt this type of punishment. Pohnpei state government should adapt the process of having death penalty for criminals. There are four important reasons why death penalty which are to reduce chaos, stop crimes, eliminate criminals, and secure citizens.
On the issue of the death penalty, I believe that the criminals who have purposely killed people for no reason should be given the death penalty because if they go out on parole they would more than likely kill again. Another issue that is of concern is education for illegal immigrants, I believe that illegal immigrants should be sent back home, not be educated here because that is using up the American citizens tax