The execution of Stephen McCoy in May of is a prime example of this. According to witnesses, McCoy reacted violently to the drugs administered to him and was seen gagging, violently coughing, and undergoing body contortions Haines. Examples like this show that the systems that we have in place have serious flaws in them.
From a moral standpoint, one cannot willing and with a clear conscious sentence an individual to an execution that may be cruel and unusual as that violates the Bill of Rights, which the judicial branch is charged with ensuring is never violated. A second argument that is given against the use of the death penalty is that it does not actually deter anyone from committing the crimes that result in receiving the punishment.
The basic argument that is made by individuals that support this form of punishment is that it makes an example out of those that commit these types of crimes and, therefore, will strike fear into the hearts of those that are thinking about attempting to commit the same sort of crime resulting in them rethinking their actions.
Unfortunately, this rational is taken with flawed logic. Those that receive the death penalty have usually committed the most gruesome, violent sorts of crimes that usually include one or more murders.
Further, those that commit these sorts of crimes are usually mentally unstable. These are the types of individuals that have no regard for the safety of themselves or that of others, and will act out their plans of actions regardless of what has happened in the past or present. The hope of deterring these sorts of individuals by making an example out of a criminal will not really make a difference in their final actions. Empirically, one of the major rationales behind allowing the death penalty to remain is that the punishment will deter others from wanting to commit a crime.
Though ruling from a standpoint of fear is already morally questionable, the question remains: It would appear that it does not hold. Further, of the inmates that were on death row, only 65 of them were executed that year. This staggering discrepancy of condemned to execution ratio can appear anything but frightening to the individual. The analysis that these two present appears to have a definite rational component to it, and the evidence suggests that the death penalty is not a deterrent to commit this type of crime.
In another sample essay on the death penalty , we wrote that the death penalty was a modern tragedy because the deterrence argument does not hold up. Another argument against the use of the death penalty is the high cost that this process has on the taxpayers. One would imagine that a life sentence in prison would be the most expensive punishment that an individual can receive, however the cost of execution is very expensive.
A recent study that was released by the Urban Institute found that the cost of the death penalty is alarmingly high. Further, the study found that the use of the death penalty has taken a great amount of financial resources from the taxpayers over the course of two decades in the sate of Maryland. The study found that Maryland had spent around million dollars in the cost of utilizing the death penalty as a means of punishment Economist. The amount of resources wasted throughout the sentencing process must also be considered when thinking about the continuation of the use of capital punishment.
Through the lengthy appeals process, a person that will ultimately be sentenced to execution can spend years and millions on appealing and refighting their charges to, ultimately, no avail.
This problem does not only appear in the death penalty scenarios, but when the stakes are raised and more money is on the table, this issue becomes something to seriously consider. The wasted money could have easily been spent elsewhere if the death penalty was not still a punishment option for the state, which is especially significant considering the harsh economic time that our nation finds itself in.
These are just some examples of how the outlawing of the death penalty can be quite beneficial to a state and the nation as a whole. As one can plainly see, the benefits financially to a state that outlaws the death penalty seem to far outweigh the reasons for keeping this outdated, extreme form of punishment. There is one last item to consider in the case of allowing or disbanding the death penalty, and that is the trend that the rest of the world is following.
As a world leader, the United States has an obligation to set a standard that the rest of the world can aspire towards. As reported by the Huffington post, the United States is one of only one tenth of the countries of the world that still carries out state executions, and further, the United States is the only Western democracy to still keep this form of punishment Huffington Post. Some of the other nations that still practice the death penalty includes: Today the issue of capital punishment has our nation split down the middle.
The two sides have drawn lines in the sand and are emphatically holding their ground. Capital punishment is one of the most controversial topics among Americans today. Since every person has there own opinion on this topic, either for or against, the question always raised is "Is it morally right. When turning on the television, radio, or simply opening the local newspaper, one is bombarded with news of arrests, murders, homicides, serial killers, and other such tragedies.
It is a rare occasion to go throughout a day in this world and not hear of these things. So what should be done about this crime rate? Not only is it committing a crime, but today, it is signing your life over to the gove.
I am all for Capital Punishment. I think that if you kill someone you should be given the death penalty. I think that the death of the killer would give family and friends a bit of ease over the death. Also the death should not be prolonged and should be done immediate.
By giving the death penalty to some one it is fair and very just to me. If you kill someone you deserve to die and not stay in. Electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, firing squad, hanging, guillotine, and garroting. When you hear these words what do you think of? Do you feel frightened? When some hear these words they tend to say, " Oh they deserve it". In the court system that is not always the case.
The question you always have to ask yourself is what did the accused do and do they deserve the death penalty? There are five basic reasons that society uses when imposing "punishment" that I've been able to conclude from my readings. I will discuss these societal concepts and show that the death penalty does not serve to further them. As a result William Smith should not be subject to the death penalty and in fact the same should be abolished from our system of "punishment".
Deterrence Deterrence is ba. The history of crime and punishment in England during the medieval period reveals that infliction of death penalty was commonly practiced for the elimination of criminals. Henry VIII who reigned in England for over fifty years, was particularly infamous for his brutality towards the condemned prisoners. He used to boil the offenders alive. His daughter Queen Elizabeth who succeeded him, was far mo. It may be reiterated that capital punishment is undoubtedly against the notions of modern rehabilitative processes of treating the offenders.
It does not offer an opportunity to the offender to reform himself. That apart, on account of its irreversible nature, many innocent persons may suffer irredeemable harm if they are wrongly hanged.
As a matter of policy, the act of taking another's life s. The pertinent issue which emerges from the foregoing discussion and the case law is how far the present law relating to capital punishment answers the need of the time and whether its scope needs to be extended, curtailed or it should be abolished altogether. The proper approach to the problem, perhaps will be that capital punishment must be retained for incorrigible and hardened criminals but its.
The history of human civilization reveals that during no period of time death penalty has been discarded as a mode of punishment. This finds support in the observation made by Sir Henry Maine who stated, "Roman Republic did not abolish death sentence though its non-use was primarily directed by the practice of self-banishment or exile and the procedure of quarrantine.
Available literature on capital punishment in United States testifies that in modern times the sentence of death is being sparingly used in that country. This, however, does not mean that capital punishment is altogether abolished in United States.
The retention of death penalty is still considered to be morally and legally just though it may be rarely carried into practice. The death penalty issue has always been one of the most important issues of the contemporary system of justice.
Years ago the majority of the criminals were male over 20, but nowadays the situation has quite changed. Although any human life is precious, the efforts of the society have always been directed mostly at maintaining the well-being of those who live by its rules. They are getting more economic benefits that anti-social elements and can enjoy a more secure future. Thus, these people have to be protected by the law in the first place. Evidence of repeat offenders returning to normal life is scarce, and instances of recidivism are abundant.
Once again, the solution depends on the main goal set for the legal system: If we side with those who believe that the system should in the first place support those who are law-abiding, the focus will be on prevention of deaths though murders as the greatest evil generated by crime.
Despite the above-mentioned deterrent effect, we cannot effectively prevent crimes by first-time offenders. It is much easier to prevent those by repeat offenders. One of the most outrageous instances supporting the above claim was the incident that happened in Alabama prison in Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, 25, an inmate who was serving life without parole for 3 murders was found guilty of killing a fellow inmate Recidivism.
The killer was finally sentenced to electrocution. However, if he had been sentenced to death right after the first murder, the other three could have been prevented. The life of an inmate who died at the hands of Peraita is no less valuable than his own.
In fact, I strongly believe that it could have been more valuable: Maybe that person was not guilty of such a heinous crime as murder? Unfortunately, there is too much evidence that certain individuals tend to commit murder while others are less prone to it. Death penalty would then free society from the return of such individuals. Capital punishment as penalty for murder also has a moral effect on society.
It signals to the criminals that murder is a serious crime the community feels strongly about. In fact, it creates the useful perception of human life as something so precious that taking it has no justification. Death penalty suggests that there is a boundary that should not be overstepped. This should send a message to society members that taking a person's property, however reprehensible, is not to be condemned via taking a life. On the contrary, murder will not be tolerated, and people who have committed this crime should be removed from society as incapable of social living.
Another common argument given in favour of death penalty is an economical consideration. Comparisons differ depending on the bias of the people carrying out the comparison.
However, these extra expenses have to be diminished through increasing the cost-efficiency of the legal system, and society that is spending huge amounts on legal services would benefit from such a reform. Just considering the cost of keeping a year-old inmate incarcerated till the end of one's life is startling and endorses the view that society has to select death penalty as a cheaper option.
Opponents of death penalty have given a number of arguments to support their position. In the first place, it is opposed by people on religious grounds. Representatives of various religious groups claim that only God can take a human life and human being are then not sanctioned to kill each other.
However, in the Hebrew Scriptures there is evidence that Jews applied death penalty to criminals for selected types of crime. The couple was killed for lying about the size of the proceeds from the sale of a house in an effort to conceal part of their income. Proceeding to the Christian Scriptures, one finds some evidence that was said to be indicative of Christ's opposition to death penalty questionable. Thus, there is a renowned episode with the female sinner John 8: Jesus was not in fact censuring the right to kill the woman according to the ancient law.
Besides, there is evidence suggesting that this passage was not present in the original version of the Scripture and was later added by an unknown person Religious Tolerance. Besides, the passage from Matthew 5: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment Thus, Christian intolerance of death penalty appears doubtful.
To negate death first of all would mean the moratorium on wars that take lives of more people than death penalty. The war casualties are often innocent peaceful people who just happened to be caught in the cross-fire, unlike recidivist criminals who end up on death row. Yet most Christian states prepare military doctrines and demonstrate to each other readiness to employ their military machine to kill people if necessary. Still others are practicing war if it suits their political goals.
How significantly will then abolition of death penalty forward the goal of living a Christian life? The same argument applies to the anti-death penalty claim that the legal system should not be allowed to execute because there is a possibility of a legal mistake that will result in the death of a wrong person NCWC.
On these grounds, wars have to be forbidden in the first place since they keep killing people that are not to blame at all.
The Death Penalty - Is the death penalty really a rational and effective way to respond to the crimes of certain prisoners. Thirty one percent of society believes we should not keep the death penalty, while others believe that the death penalty doesn’t really keep crime from happening.
Death penalty is capital punishment wherein a criminal proven guilty of a major crime is sentenced to death by the government. I am against the death penalty and can prove in my essay that abolishing it would be a better choice.
This sample essay on the death penalty gives a series of strong arguments against the continued use of capital punishment: flawed executions and wasted funds are cited/5(16). The title is Arguments against the Death Penalty yet the author spent the whole time counterclaiming any arguments brought up rather than explaining the logistics behind the arguments. No side was taken in this essay however the title clearly states that the essay should be on arguments against.
Example academic essay: The Death Penalty. This essay shows many important features which commonly appear in essays. Should the death penalty be restored in the UK? The restoration of the death penalty for serious crimes is an issue of debate in the UK because of . An argumentative essay about death penalty. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. There is no harsher punishment than death itself.