Danielle Blair
November 15, 2016
Comm-123
Lois Wright
Should the Death Penalty be retained?
The debate on the death penalty is known to be very controversial and a unique one, however after reviewing many different arguments associated with this topic the conclusion is quite clear. The death penalty should be retained as it is an extremely useful tool in sentencing criminals that have committed some of the worst crimes that are known to society. Individuals throughout history have used the death penalty as a means of punishment, and Canada should continue to do so. The death penalty should be retained in such a manner that executions are no longer considered to be a form of cruel and unusual punishment, and the justice system is functioning
…show more content…
Behind this reasoning, if an individual had committed a murder, that person’s punishment should ultimately be death itself. Both Pojman and van den Haag truly believe that retributivism helps protect our social order, and helps by eliminating the chances of vigilante justice. All guilty individuals deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime they had committed. This states that real justice requires people to suffer for their own wrongdoings, and to suffer in a way that is appropriate for the crime. For example, if murders are sentenced to death and are executed, potential murders will double think before killing another for the fear of losing their own lives.
In conclusion, the death penalty should be brought back in to action, as it is proven to be a useful tool to maintain criminal behaviour within our societies. With the opinions of professionals and the help of the justice system functioning at a level where innocent individuals are not being wrongly convicted, we will be able to maintain deterrence and retribution within our country. It is very important that our legal system steps up to plate making the death penalty back into action to serve justice properly to those individuals who truly deserve
My proposal and personal recommendation is to abolish the death penalty on a national level. I do not think that it benefits society as much as it harms individuals and causes unnecessarily excessive judicial costs. However, I still believe that the death penalty should remain in effect for some extraneous situations. The federal government should still be able to preform executions when it deems them necessary. Yet I believe that traditional murder sentencing’s should be free of
Gideon v. Wainwright( 1963, 9-0 Vote Decision) Facts of the Case/Question Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony because he broke into and entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. When he appeared in court, Gideon requested that the court appoint a lawyer for him because he did not have one. However, according to Florida state law, an attorney may only be appointed to a needy defendant in capital cases, so the court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself at the trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison.
Arguments for reinstating this form of punishment are the over population of Australian prisons, the benefits of the death penalty and the advantages given to prisoners when they are meant to be being punished. The death penalty would be beneficial in many ways for Australia and should be
For many years, Australia has debated if they should reintroduce death penalty or not. The year 1967 was the last time when Australia used death penalty as a punishment. There are a total of 22 countries in the world where death penalty is still legal and present and these include countries such as America, China, Afghanistan and North Korea. Despite death penalty still being legal in many countries, it appears that Australia should not re-introduce death penalty. Death penalty should not be legal in Australia since there are other ways to punish a criminal that does not involve death and there never is a humane way to kill an individual.
In recent years, anti-death penalty propagandists have succeeded in stoking the fear that capital punishment is being carelessly meted out. Ironically, Of the 875 prisoners executed in the United States in modern times, not one has been retroactively proved innocent. The benefits of a legal system in which judges and juries have the option of sentencing the cruelest or coldest murderers to death far outweigh the potential risk of executing an innocent person. First and foremost, the death penalty makes it possible for justice to be done to those who commit the worst of all crimes. The execution of a murderer sends a powerful moral message: that the innocent life he took was so precious, and the crime he committed so horrific, that he forfeits
Deterrence theory states that people follow the law because they are scare of getting caught or being punished. In this article, “The Death Penalty Deters Crime,” David Muhlhausen, expert on criminal justice programs in the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis and a research fellow in empirical policy analysis, confirms the deterrence theory. By means of statistical data and research dating, Muhlhausen contends that the death penalty does deters murder crime which ultimately saves lives. He also believes that executions and murder rates are somehow connected to each other. Even though, some adequate emotional appeals appeared, Muhlhausen’s article failed to prove, logically, the deterrence theory.
The death penalty should stay because we need it. If someone commits a crime they should take full responsibility for their actions. We do not need to keep them in jail. If they stayed in jail then they are still alive and someone innocent had to die because of their actions.
Rough Draft Is the death penalty an effective and justified punishment? This is a topic many Americans have discussed for a long time, and has caused much controversy. Both sides have their pros and cons, and they will be discussed. The first point that many people have about capital punishment is that it’s unconstitutional.
Although the death penalty may bring some closure to families of the victims and even the victims themselves it still should be abolished because the negatives outweigh the positives. People could be murdered by the state even if they are innocent. They are taking away any chance these people have at a normal life even though it's a life that they deserve and did nothing to have it taken away. 6. Conclusion
Annotated Bibliography Draft Student name : Haider Zafaryab Student number: 2360526 Thesis Statement : Capital Punishment is a very controversial topic around the globe. I believe that it does more harm than good and breeds violence in society. Source 1: Radelet, M. L., & Akers, R. L. (1996).
Each year in many countries around the world people are murdered in the name of “justice”. But can justice really include a sanitised form of revenge? Many people are for the death penalty regardless of what it actually is. A major way that the death penalty is flawed is shown in the amount of innocent people who are sentenced to death.
Death penalty is like the ‘’tooth for a tooth – eye for an eye’’ theory. Instead of acting inhuman to our fellow beings we should find a better way to solve the mind of criminals. Making the problem vanish is not a good idea. We should do psychological researching instead! I, myself have a lot of faith in humanity.
Death Penalty According to the 2010 Gallup Poll, 64% of the United State of America are supporting the death penalty, I as an American am part of that 36% that is against it. I do not believe that we as human being should determine whether another person should live or die. A second reason that I am against the death penalty is for the reason that the accused person could be innocent and normally the accused person only has one court presentation and is only judged by the judge not a jury of their peer, and is sent to death row where they pay for a crime that they haven’t done. My final reason that i do not believe that the death penalty should count as a punishment for the American people is because, a person that has done a massive massacre shouldn’t just be able to leave the world just like that without paying and suffering for what they have done, Or should the death punishment continue as it is for it has a great benefit to us as citizens of the United States.
Does society really need Capital punishment or would we be better off without it? For many facts that I have found in my research I believe society could do better then Capital Punishment. The most debated reason over the death pentaly is if it is right or wrong morally. There are many angles to look at this question.
In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.