After examining our responses to the case of Stanley “Tookie” Williams, it is evident that we displayed contrasting views on whether or not Williams’ should have received the death penalty. In your response, you state that “Williams’s sentence should have been changed to life in prison,” whereas I argue “his sentence should not be commuted to life in prison.” It is my belief that Williams’ deserved the death penalty due to the fact that he “didn’t show any sign of remorse” for murdering “four innocent people.” On the subject of executing Williams’, you referred to “execution as freeing someone from suffering, guilt and sins they have committed.” In contrast, you maintain his sentence “should have been changed to life in prison” so
Zachary Shemtob, a teacher of criminal justice at Central Connecticut State University, and David Lat, a former federal prosecutor, in their essay “Executions Should Be Televised” (2011), discourse the issue whether the criminal execution process should be videotaped and televised or to be privately disclosed among the press and selected witnesses, in which both Shemtob and Lat affirm to broadcasting. Shemtob and Lat construct their claim by defining the transparency that arises when the public is notified of executions through the media and analysing concerns that may arise from misguided illustrations of broadcasting executions, such as relating them to a pet euthanization or obtaining a sympathetic feeling towards the executed felon who
Is each person defined by the worst thing that they have done? Can we as a society approve of hunting down and attacking the most vulnerable of people due to their vulnerability? Is it acceptable for the law to determine who deserves to die and who doesn’t? “Just Mercy” prompts its readers to explore these questions and many more. In this book, Bryan Stevenson, lawyer, social activist, and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, documents his time as a young lawyer in Montgomery, Alabama working to save death row prisoners and those wrongfully accused and incarcerated.
he death penalty deters criminals and makes them think twice. This would happen because if they do something really horrible they won’t do it the first place. According to “Death Penalty Focus : Innocent and Condemned to Die: The Story of Greg Wilhoit” “A second trial was held in 1993, but after the prosecution presented their case (without the bite mark evidence) the judge issued a directed verdict of innocence and Greg was cleared of all charges.(Condemned 2016)This means that the trial had second thoughts that helped Greg win the trial. The article “Capital Punishment” claims that “ President Bill Clinton signs the Violent crime control and Law enforcement act that expands the federal death penalty to 60 crimes including 3 that don’t involve
Imagine, your children are flipping through the channels and they come to find a prisoner being displayed ready to be executed. They have just witnessed a person's life being taken away. Zachary Shemtob teaches Criminal Justice at Central Connecticut State University; David Lat is a former federal prosecutor. Together, they worked on an essay and published it in the New York Times in 2011. The essay is an analysis of whether, "Executions Should be Televised.
In writing the essay entitled "More Innocents Die When We Don't Have Capital Punishment," Dennis Prager examines the arguments of those against capital punishment. He makes a deductive argument that supports his conclusion in favor of capital punishment, taking the stance that murderers should undergo execution as capital punishment imposes a lessened threat to innocent lives than if it was not an option. Furthermore, Prager makes several claims throughout his writing regarding those opposing capital punishment, their arguments, and the effects on the lives of innocent people. Additionally, through this essay, he commits a few logical fallacies such as false dilemma, strawman, slippery slope, and appealing to the person. Prager's essay presents
Attorneys from both sides of the capital punishment debate were interviewed with one stating “If you are going to kill somebody in the country, don’t be poor.” *6 This opinion was promptly opposed by an Assistant District Attorney who went on to describe the crimes that those on death row had committed. The more people that were interviewed and surveyed the more they began to realize that the American death penalty was filled with
Rhetorical Analysis Mortimer B. Zuckerman argues that we need to change the way our criminal justice system operates. He explains that there are more prisoners in a cell than the amount it was originally created for. Zuckerman also acknowledges the fact that incarceration rates are extremely high and that the vast majority of prisoners are nonviolent. The author believes that the way nonviolent criminals are dealt with today brings about negative consequences that could easily be avoided (Zuckerman). Zuckerman successfully convinces the reader that reform is needed in the criminal justice system by using several tactics such as eradicating common myths about incarceration, talking about the problem and solution while using logos, and appealing
Even before Bryan Stevenson started representing people on death row, he was opposed to capital punishment. To him, the act of killing someone who is found guilty of murder only to demonstrate that killing is wrong, does not make logical sense. He believes that the death penalty is a punishment rooted in hopelessness and anger. It’s because of his moral and religious background that he believes no one is just a crime, we are more than the worst thing we’ve ever done. According to Stevenson, capital punishment in America is a lottery.
Eliot Spitzer once said, “Our criminal justice system is fallible. We know it, even though we don't like to admit it. It is fallible despite the best efforts of most within it to do justice. And this fallibility is, at the end of the day, the most compelling, persuasive, and winning argument against a death penalty.” Many people in America are in favor of capital punishment because some crimes violate the moral codes of our society.
For example, the death penalty was almost commonplace and long enough ago, it was even a form of macabre entertainment for some. This contrasts heavily with today’s feelings on the death penalty, with the most common Americans feeling that it should only be used in extreme cases, and some feeling that it should be outlawed entirely. Even recent president Barack Obama has stated in regards to a Supreme Court ruling that “I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for most egregious of crimes”
We have all heard of the saying “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Patrick Hannon was ordered to be executed on November 8th by a lethal injection after Governor Scott signed his death warrant for a murder scene in 1991. On Patrick’s day of execution, I attended his vigil at the Florida State Prison in Starke with the Gainesville Citizens for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. At the Vigil, I met two of Patrick’s Pen Pals and heard great things about him. From that moment, I realized that our past does not define who we are.
Overview • Brief overview of the article is provided; the thesis of the article is clearly stated. Falco and Freiburger’s (2011) article entitled Public Opinion and the Death Penalty: A Qualitative Approach deals with the public opinion and the death penalty. More specifically, the authors’ purpose was to “assess the complexity of the public opinion about the death penalty (Falco, & Freiburger, 2011, par.1).
Countless arguments over the morality of the death penalty have been made throughout the years. When it comes to the death penalty, we have two groups. The abolitionists, who argue that we should abolish the death penalty. And the retentionists, those who argue to retain the death penalty. These arguments cover everything from the sanctity of a human’s life, to whether or not we even need the death penalty.
I will now introduce the fading of humanity. People suggest and would like that death penalty should still exist. They think about safety. They think about how they will feel safe if a murder is executed. They do not think that they vote for violation of the human rights.
