A death sentence brings finality to a horrible chapter in the lives of these family members. It would mean that the family members of the victim could then end all sadness of the crime committed and try to forget about it as best they can and know that justice has been served to the defendant. If it wasn’t for the various types of punishment there wouldn’t be a way to deter people from committing crime. The death penalty creates another form of crime deterrent. Prison time is an effective deterrent to a point, with some people more time is needed.
In some states, the individual must be convicted of two serious felonies for the three strikes law to apply, while in others any felonies count towards the third strike. Critics of the three strike law express many strong arguments against their harsh legal statute. Our society has ultimately had an issue with the three strikes law. Some people have said that the law “destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge, it is unjust in certain conditions, and it adds more criminals to an already crowded and expensive criminal system”
Since the capital punishment is still carry on, many opponents and defenders of the death penalty appeal to the sanctity of life. However, the death penalty is not justified. This is because death penalty is not an effective crime deterrent, executed innocent people and it needs a higher cost to carry on. First of all, some opponents argue that death penalty can help deter crime and protect public. For instance, the criminal will think twice before killing for fear of receive the strongest punishment.
This results in poor representation of convicted people in courts and unfair verdicts. Another issue associated with the penalty is that the value of life is lessened. Government should be concerned with the damage inflicted on society when a person is sentenced to be killed by juries. Being put to death by a people does not seem to be that different from a heinous murder committed by a murderer. With all of the media reporting executions like movies, societies become desensitized and accept death penalty as the right way to take care of criminals.
This article discusses individual cases and crimes and gives analysis of the arguments made against death penalty in real world. Firstly it discusses the deterrence argument while going through a number of cases. The conclusion is that it has no effect on reducing homicides but ironically it breeds violence as in some cases offenders committed a capital crime in a territory where execution still prevails while they could have easily avoided it. Second thing discussed is the cost, the research in article shows that it costs significantly more money to put a convict to death than to incarcerate him for life in a prison. Moreover it is shown that in many cases criminals are executed while there are reasonable doubts in their convictions and some have avoided execution by just a few hours before being exonerated.
Even though some may argue that death penalty deters crime, studies have shown that it does not. On the contrary, death penalty increases the murder rate since it causes the death of still another person. Execution cost taxpayers more than keeping someone in prison for life. Isolating
Even though I think flogging is humiliating and painful, it is clearly a much easier and cheaper way of locking up a criminal rather than putting them in prison, and that we should consider bringing it back for non-violent crimes. In Jacoby’s article, "Bring Back Flogging," he talks to the readers about the flaws of today's criminal justice system and tries to persuade them to bring back flogging as a punishment for some crimes and other instances. Jacoby’s thesis is directly in his title “Bring Back Flogging”. His title is an attention grabber and it also makes the us think about his essay. He starts his essay with a knowledge on the puritans justice system, and how they dealt with criminals back in the old days.
With DNA, the likelihood of false convictions is minute and, following an appeals process, it’s even smaller. Regarding the cost of keeping a person in prison, supporters of the death penalty would argue that a tragic death, caused by murder, or any other violent crime, along with the heartache it causes is what’s truly a huge loss to our society. And the public cost of providing that criminal with room and board for the rest of their lives compounds the
It has been proven to be cheaper for taxpayers and governments to sentence someone to life rather than to death row, which would provide more funding to go towards more useful things like education and foreign aid that may actually help the number of crimes being committed to decrease. The life of the criminal cannot compensate for the crime committed, two wrongs do not make a right. It’s hypocritical, it condemns killing by killing people. It’s understandable that in some cultures and religions the death penalty may be quite traditional as a way of making someone amenable for the crimes that they have committed. But tradition can change.
Some individuals are for gun control and some think that gun control does not make a difference. These are some pros for gun control. Knowing that people who cannot easily obtain a firearm allows people to feel safer. Most violent crimes are committed with firearms and restricting gun ownership will most likely reduce a tremendous amount of crimes. Legalized gun ownership gives a greater chance of being in the wrong hands such as a child, giving it a better chance of resulting in a deadly accident.