Mia Michael H.English Mrs. Gaskill April 23, 2013 An argument that never seems to have a clear winner is “Life in Prison” vs. “The Death Penalty”. Although both sides have valid points, I feel that only one should be allowed. The death penalty is inhumane and unethical. It seems hypocritical for us, the American people, and are judicial system to say that murder is wrong and illegal, but continue to murder both the guilty and thee wrongfully accused. The death penalty gives those that are actually guilty the easy way out of punishment, and the innocent a wrongful death.
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 American Civil Liberties Union holds that the death penalty inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantee of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. The imposition of the death penalty is inconsistent with fundamental values of our democratic system. The state should not arrogate unto itself the right to kill human beings, especially when it kills with premeditation and ceremony. We shall therefore continue to seek to prevent executions and to abolish capital punishment by litigation, legislation, commutation, or by the weight of a renewed public outcry against this brutal and brutalizing institution. Opponents of capital punishment say it has no deterrent effect on crime, wrongly gives governments the power to take human life, and spreads social injustices by disproportionately targeting people of color (racist) and people who cannot afford good attorneys (classist).
Sometimes a punishment is related to your transgression, and other times it has nothing to do with it. None the less there is a common goal, and that is to deter you from breaking the rules. It really shouldn’t matter what the punishment is just as long as it brings about a desirable result. Certainly the same must be true for our criminal justice system; it’s not advantageous for us as a society for the system to be in place strictly to hold us accountable for our actions. Take the death penalty for example, it is the old eye for an eye concept, kill and be killed.
If Herrera was sentenced to life imprisonment then he would have been alive and free. The death penalty also violates the constitution. It violates the 8th Amendment which prevents the use of “cruel and unusual punishment”. The constitution is like a set of rules for the country to follow. One must not break them or violate it.
The death penalty is a necessary tool for the United States as it helps reduce the extreme crimes that are arising today. The Death penalty has many opponents. Stephanie Boys is just one in thousands. In her article “The Death Penalty: An Unusual Punishment America is Inflicting Upon Itself” she argues that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it is cruel and unusual punishment. She quotes the Constitution of the United States and argues that the Death Penalty goes against the 8th amendment.
Should we adhere to the policy of “an eye for an eye”? Opponents of the Death Penalty, in their attempt to illustrate that executing a convicted criminal is no less barbaric than the crime for which he or she is being punished, claim that sentencing these individuals to death does not deter crime. In fact, such executions merely convey that it is acceptable to act violently. In her argument against Capital Punishment, Belinda York states, “Why should potential criminals be afraid of committing crimes, when the very society that prohibits such behavior resorts to the same methods” (89)? According to this view, if the state is allowed to kill, why is not this privilege extended to all citizens?
Persuasive essay Would you not do whatever it takes just to know that there is one less murderer on our planet? Give justice to the vistim’s grieving family at any cost? Many people believe that capital punishmant is unethical and should be abolished. But presently, the crime rate is rapidly increasing due to the lack of effective capital punishment. The murderers deserve to be executed like they killed their victims.
The death penalty is a great tool for the American justice system. Without it, criminals may have the opportunity to reoffend or commit other heinous crimes. The death penalty also saves the lives of what may be future victims by preventing these criminals from ever having the opportunity to commit another crime against innocent civilians. There are those who will argue that we are taking away their human rights to live. True, every human was born with human rights, but I believe if you take away someone else’s life, you give up your human rights.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, it prohibits the execution of mentally retarded people. The issue at hand is the standard of decency to help mark the progress of society. This issue will help determine which punishments can be sentenced with out it being cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court of the U.S. affirmed that it is cruel and unusual punishment to impose the death sentence on a juvenile who has committed a crime under the age of 18 through the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment (Cornell, 2009).The reasoning for the rejection of the death penalty on juveniles is that can not be classified as being the worst of offenders. Juveniles are way too vulnerable to conduct in behavior that is too immature and irresponsible (Cornell, 2009).