The Exonerated: An Argument Against The Death Penalty

965 Words4 Pages
Willy Epiter-Smith Professor Baker Execution: State Justified Killing In the United States, Americans have witnessed a massive rise in efforts to fight crime. New laws have been passed, technology has been renovated, and additional prisons have been built, with more inmates filling cells each day, all in an effort to punish crime and deter law-abiding citizens from committing them. But in the criminal justice system, only one form of punishment has been so heavily discussed, debated, and undoubtedly considered controversial: The Death Penalty. According to Amnesty International, 34 states currently have the death penalty, which means only 16 have life…show more content…
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. By time their innocence was proven, it was too late. That’s why in order to insure an accurate execution, dna should be used in every case where such evidence is present. If a case is purely circumstantial, a defendant should not face the death penalty. However, if there is irrefutable evidence of guilt, and the crime committed is truly heinous, the defendant should face death. Finally, death penalty opponents argue that any life is sacred, and that it’s a much “harsher” punishment to put a killer in prison for life with no chance of parole. To

More about The Exonerated: An Argument Against The Death Penalty

Open Document