Capital Punishment Should Be Abolished Argumentative Essay

Points to remember before you participate in this disuccsion: * Assume, you one of the member of a real group discussion. * Take the initiative to participate and contribute your thoughts. * Express your positive attitude towards providing the solution. | |  | | | In my opinion instead of banning Capital punishment, frequency of capital punishment should be brought to minimum. It should be strictly applied in case of Rape & murder (mass murder) because nobody has given him right to destroy somebody's life and they should fear every now and then that this crime will not be tolerate rapist and murderers.

But not for robbery or other low level crime because you can earn your wealth again ; 10-15 year of imprisonment will give him good lesson. | | | |  | | | "An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth" which we all today known as capital punishment. I think it should not be banned. Though this form of punishment is inhuman and cruel, there is no other alternative but to enforce it. Just as one removes a rotten apple to save the basket full of apples, similarly we must get rid of the unwanted elements so that we can preserve the society. | |  | | | Hi, I think capital punishment should not be banned. Criminals are all their way to go beyond the unexpected mark. Once they are being left or being ignored at, they may cause a massive genocide. Second thing is that they will not have any fear for any punishment which may lead to increase in crime in the society and will hinder in social harmony and social peace. | | |  | | | According to me capital punishment should not be banned. Criminals think that they will be threw into the prison if they commit any crime.

There is no mistake in their thinking because the rules of the INDIAN CONSTITUTION had made like that. They don't bother about jail although the punishment time is either 7 years or 14 years because jails are like their vacation spots. (example in the case of kasab). This is one of the reason for increasing in crime rate. But If India had followed the concept of capital punishment there would be no Mumbai attacks, no murders, no kidnappings. The fear of death (because of capital punishment) should shiver the criminals for thinking of crime. Then India absolutely can be peaceful country. | |  | | | According to me capital punishment should be given to every criminal who has committed a crime. By giving capital punishment to every criminal and it becomes a lesson for them and they possibly think about that what they are doing. For this govt has to take strict actions and make our India crime-less country. | |  | | | If it is abolished then our society will in trouble, today, not so much but still criminals have fear of capital punishment if its take back by GOVT the the courage will increase in criminals and they will do crime fearless.

Order custom essay Capital Punishment Should Be Abolished Argumentative Essay with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

So my suggestion when any body do crime like murder, rape, robbery then we must give capital punishment hardly such kind of people because nobody have rights for killing other people. | | |  | | | I think capital punishment should not be banned. As said by many persons who are we to take the life of others, we means civilization where this law of capital punishment has not come from sky but majority of our country men and women voted for capital punishment to prevail and if you are living in this country you are accepting the law and in law capital punishment also comes. Capital punishment should not be abolished rather our government should think about it n emphasize on it. Capital Punishment should be given to those who have done heinous crimes like murder. There must be fear in the mind of people then only we can get healthy atmosphere to live. It will reduce the crime rates in the countries otherwise we will have our newspaper full of crimes in the future as we have now. So to get rid of these things I think Capital punishment should not be abolished. I appreciate opinions coming from different people but capital punishment is not punishment at all, it is revenge in its good form as people think. Punishment is, no matter how unimaginable the crime is or whether we are bound by sentiments or not is scientifically a procedure to correct mind of CRIMINAL. Whether a person killed thousands or not is unrelated as Punishment talks about correction and not past, if we talk about past don't call it PUNISHMENT it is revenge only! Secondly law is going thousands of years back when religion and psychology are going into future.

People think more massive crimes a person commits the more punishment he deserves because we cannot bear the end results at all, true but the fact is that society uses two opposites GOOD and BAD. GOOD should be victorious over BAD, but terrible crimes like mass murders, rapes, burning people, children etc. Are committed by mentally insane people. No normal person has desire or interest or energy or even thought will ever come, so we are biologically safe first! People like Teresa, Jesus have inherent traits that make them peaceful. Ok they might have conscious will but they did not use it because they need not.

On other hand criminals need to use additional will and change their mind from instincts and urges and this is not called REAL GREAT! psychopaths are born with distorted mind, is it their fault? They have no emotion called love. Love comes from brain. If any one has doubt they can just observe whether emotions are made with hands or come from within us without effort. If so a person who cannot love humanity has fault in nervous system. If a person takes anesthetic will he get pain? Still the person may remain wide awake with no pain in part injected with anesthetic.

On similar lines criminals know what they are doing (barring a few who are completely mad and insane and do not know reality) but cannot feel love or empathy just like anesthetic REMOVES PAIN. So one second assume we are not born with this EMOTION or this emotion is minimal? One can tell their own answers? |  | | Well, capital punishment in India is given in "the rarest of rare cases". This includes. Raging war against the nation, murder abetting the suicide of a child or insane person and likewise. If this is so then why delay in the case of Ajmal Kasab and Afjal guru? Hadn't they have done this offense?

They came, butchered our democracy, plundered Indian lives and mystically send a message to our netas and babus and obviously to us we'll iterate this. What can you do? Don't you think this is a derogatory to our democracy, to our so-called cultured society and to our crippled law. I think trialing these guys is a totally a waste of our money and time. Just hang these guys till death because these lunatics don't have respect to the lives of innocents. So, why to have mercy on them. I vehemently appeal to our netas and babus not to test our patience and provide them capital punishment.

I admit there should not be any trial to these guys, just directly hang them, and I also appeal to our law-makers to bring the case of rape in this jurisdiction. |  | | Hi, 'm Sukanta. I have already written my view here long day back. But I think some people didn't get my point or didn't read my opinion . People like Anuradha, commented on 31st March (plz dont take it in a negative way) , I think are not practical and live in a fantasy ideal world, where (they think) if you forbid a person not to do crime, just listens to you and stop doing crime. Ok.

To you all such persons, I am putting few questions again. Please answer straightly, not in a round about way and without repeating idealistic writings like "we should kill.... ", "then whats the difference between them and the judges" etc. My questions are- 1 ) Tell me just one way to change the minds of people like Kasav, Daud Ibrahim, Afjal Guru and so on or how can you kill the crime within them ? 2 ) How can you be sure enough that they wont do any crime again ? 3 ) How can you be sure that farther no plane will be hijacked demanding their release ? ) Who will bear the cost of super expensive foods and security ( as Kasav is getting right now )? 5 ) Can you think of any other punishment if your father/ mother/brother/sister or your boy friend/ girlfriend / wife/husband will die in such a horrific incident ? If so, then plz mention the punishment you would like to give them . Thank you. | | | Hey people, in India where I live (Chandigarh) crime rate is increasing by the clock, and I believe there might be equal number of capital punishments, well its not like that punishment is given when the accused are caught and proved guilty.

Firstly, getting through this phase is very difficult, and even if the accused is punished of ' Daffa 302 ' the hanging is not made. There has not been a single hanging since 2004 in India. Well, with this attitude I reckon the criminals would not be afraid of the system. Well, Capital punishments is virtually abolished !. |  | | As per my perception, capital punishment is only on papers in India right now, as it is clear from the fact that Indian courts have sentenced near about 29 death sentence in last decade out of which only one person has been executed till date and the remaining are just on papers.

In a recent judgement given by Session judge, kathua (j&k) in which six out of seven accused were granted death penalty (seventh one has already expired) but as is the condition prevalling in india, this sentence is also just on paper, to execute them is too hard on the part of concerned authority. Apart from that afzal guru has been awarded capital punishment since 2006. But till date there is no execution of that sentence because execution of afzal guru is now only a question of executing a crimnal, but a senstive poltical issue.

Various neferous poltical beaurecrates in India and especially in kashmir are earning there bread on this vary issue ana centre is also aware of the fact that if afzal guru is hanged during there tenure, there poltical graph would come down in kashmir by a fair amount. So we can say that if person who have been granted death sentence are not hanged and if the sentence awarded to them is just on paper, then what is the fun of awarding this sentence, it's better that it should be banned now. Dear friends, I believe that for the sake of saving few criminals we cannot let hundreds and thousands of innocent people to die. Even if we have to take strict action against them, even if it is a capital punishment we shold come forward and support it. We have seen that due to the lack of proper and strict actions, thousands of innocent people are raped and murdered every year and the criminals walk freely without any fear of getting punishment. As one of my friend took the example of saudi Arabia, We can also make India a safer and better place to live with the imposition of capital punishment. |  | |

Capital punishment must not be removed because i think it is the right way to give lesson to other criminals that his crime may lead him to death many peoples had written the sayings "kill the crime not the criminals" but they had not mentioned the way to do that. Shall we start appointing "MAHATMA BUDHH and swami vivekanand" instead of police? "Tit 4 Tat" is fit here". i want to ask the people asking for mercy that if a convict kills your most loving one then also u will ask the honorable judge for showing mercy to him............ And for them i want that they must watch the movie "A WEDNESDAY"....... From my perspective, capital punishment should not be abolished as it will definitely help us to create a sense of fear in the minds of criminals. "Kill crimes not criminals" is a marvelous proposal but those stand for this theory should clarify how it can be put into practice. In order to save the innocent people from being punished, I strongly feel that, all loopholes in the judicial system should be closed. Only capital punishment awarded to hard-core criminals can set an example for other like minded persons and help the polity to bring down the whopping number of ever increasing criminal deeds.

One more point, those liberal minds, who shed tears for the criminals must taken into account the pathetic state of the victims. Moreover, countries with stringent criminal and judicial systems always show a decreasing trend in such heinous acts as murder and theft. Take the example of Saudi Arabia where Islamic code of law is strictly implemented, the number of such dubious crimes are very low there. So capital punishment should be there in the larger interest of the country at least as a 'necessary evil'. |  | | I do not think that capital punishment is the only solution to decrease crime in the society.

Already there are many cases are still pending and our judiciary and government is sleeping. Todays in lakhs court cases are pending and the accused are moving freely without any problem. In my view govt should make a strict rules against accused and finalised their case only in six months and give a hard punishment without capital punishment. | Hi everyone. I totally agree that capital punishment should be given, if a person have committed any heinous crime, but before that a transparent investigation should be done.

Today most of the time main culprits (usually people with huge amount of money) uses poor as their weapon and commit heinous crimes and cannot ever get caught, because they bribe everybody and every system, and not only this they bring out false proofs against that poor guy and thus that poor fellow becomes victim. And our judiciary give punishment to that poor as it depends on proofs, doesn't matter however false it may be. I just want to ask why the poor became victim, just because he was poor or he has just trusted somebody? Capital punishment should be given to that criminal who has shadowed himself and used a poor person as his weapon.

Indeed he should be hanged. |  | | I agree with the statement 'we should kill crime not criminals'. But how can the crime be reduced without this type of punishment. It is not possible to create an awareness so that the criminals move away from the crime. We can take the example of the terrorist itself. Providing awareness doesn't seems to create any alteration in their minds. So in my opinion,only way would be the capital punishment. Punishment should be meant to leave a message of fear in the hearts of whoever trying to commit a brutal crime. This fear can obviously prevent them doing brutal crimes.

As my friend said earlier,over 30 countries have abolished capital punishment and do not have any increase in crime. But at the same time it have not shown any decrease in rate. Whereas in countries having strict capital punishment have low crime rates. If regarding the punishment of innocent,its up to judiciary. They have been shown guilty in front of judiciary. Thats why they are been given punishment like dat So in my opinion,capital punishment should not be abolished |  | | Hi everyone. A very good line said by Priya "We should kill crimes, not criminals". I'm agree with this line.

It is the best way if we are able to kill crimes without killing criminals. This could be possible only when there is stringent law and people are abide by the laws. But if there is need to kill criminals to reduce crime then it's also quite fair option. We should follow "Tit for Tat Policy". Those who have committed heinous crimes like murder, rape and the politicians who have cheated our country and the people should be given capital punishment immediately. These types of person doesn't deserve to get a place in our society. |  | | I think for some crime capital punishment should be there.

In India, people are not respecting laws any more. Whether he is a rich guy or poor. They some how have started believing that they will escape from arms of law. If we take the case of Jessica or Priyadarshini Matto, in both cases judgement took so many years by that time criminals were roaming freely in the society. What is guarantee that these people will not engage in any other crime? In US capital punishment is allowed and people over there are more disciplined just because the laws are so stringent. In India also present day situation is so horrible that strictness is need of the hour. . Every human vll enjoy the freedom at the most of all side provided to him until n unless there are no strict rules. !. |  | | I m completely satisfied with kapil you can not let criminals to be in a state of fearless after commiting crime. Capital punishment should not be banned. One who is guilty shud be punished and if his/her crime goes beyond limit then he/she is worthy of capital punishment. By doing so we can reduce crime rates. These are 'rakshax' and capital punishment is there 'vadh'. |  | | According to me, capital punishment should not be abolished. here is no reason to save the life of such a person who is a cause of misery and fear in society. capital punishments are not meant for small crimes. If the crime committed is not intense they are punished in terms of fine and imprisonment. if they are to improve themselves, they would definitely do that by this. if people go to extent of murdering or other criminal activities, they are definitely becoming violent and has no fear of law. such a criminal is sure to do many more harms to society and the nation as a whole. No nation need such criminals and so this world is not a place for them.  | | We should kill crime and not criminals... I agree.. But how can we kill crime in our society? It is possible only by killing the culprits.. A punishment should serve as a shuddering example for others thus preventing them from doing anything unfair.. I strongly believe that India should become a more disciplined country like Singapore where a small mistake like spitting in the roadside can lead to heavy fines.. In short,our Government should take steps to take stringent measures towards anything | We should kill crime and not criminals... I agree.. But how can we kill crime in our society?

It is possible only by killing the culprits.. A punishment should serve as a shuddering example for others thus preventing them from doing anything unfair.. I strongly believe that India should become a more disciplined country like Singapore where a small mistake like spitting in the roadside can lead to heavy fines.. In short,our Government should take steps to take stringent measures towards anything unfair,whoever be the culprit,be it an ordinary person or one of our much respected ministers.. Purify our country.... |  | | only if the punishments are severe, crimes will get reduced. lse, we could find none other way to protect ourself from crimes . . . so i am strongly agree with that capital punishments are to be booned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |  | | Have a good day to All , This is Vimal. According to my view capital punishment is the only solution to reduce the crime rates. Because i have an evidence not only me all of us knew this. Countries like Dubai Saudi Arabhiya the crime rates are very less only because of severe punishments , and capital punishments for most of the crimes. killing the criminals only kills the crime. unless crime will not be killed. To have a healthy country we should reduce the crime. o reduce crime capital punishment should be needed|  | | Criminals have no right to take aways someone's smile n if they are guilty of affecting someone's life then they are worthy to go through such similar pain. May be the fear of going through the same might stop them doing something brutal. Relieving them from capital punishment is alleviating them for going for wrong doings. | Crime is everywhere. In our neighborhood, in the neighboring state, wherever we look, we find criminals and crime. Criminals have become a part of our daily lives. Does this mean we let them be the darkness of our society?

No, definitely not. Eliminating crime and criminals is our duty, and we cannot ignore it. Getting the rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. I do not advocate death penalty for everybody. I support death penalty because of several reasons. Firstly, I believe that death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime. Secondly, it is true that death penalty is irreversible, but it is hard to kill a wrongly convicted person due to the several chances given to the convicted to prove his innocence. Thirdly, death penalty assures safety of the society by eliminating these criminals.

Deterrence means to punish somebody as an example and to create fear in other people for the punishment. Death penalty is one of those extreme punishments that would create fear in the mind of any sane person. Capital punishment should be abolished Critics of capital punishment put forward several arguments. 1. The application of the death penalty is so arbitrary that it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Harry Blackmun claims there is an irreconcilable conflict between two requirements in capital sentencing.

On the one hand, the Eighth Amendment demands that sentencing discretion in capital cases be structured according to fixed, objective standards to eliminate arbitrariness and discrimination. On the other hand, there is a humanitarian requirement that sentencing discretion be flexible enough to permit sentencers to individualize justice by taking mitigating circumstances into account that might justify a sentence less than death. 2. The death penalty discriminates against racial minorities and the poor. Statistics show that the death penalty is administered in a selective and racially discriminatory manner. 3. The eath penalty doesn't deter crime. 4. The death penalty costs taxpayers more than life imprisonment. 5. The inevitability of factual, legal, and moral errors results in a system that must wrongly kill some innocent defendants. 6. Public support for the death penalty diminishes substantially when the public is fully informed about the penalty, the alternative of life imprisonment without parole, and the consequences of the death penalty. Capital punishment should not be abolished Proponents of the death penalty make arguments centering around the justifications of fairness, retribution, deterrence, economy, and popularity. . The death penalty isn't arbitrary. In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty isn't cruel and unusual punishment and that a two-part proceeding — one for determining innocence or guilt and one for determining the sentence — is constitutional. Any conflicts between eliminating arbitrariness and allowing sentencers to individualize justice can be resolved, according to Justice Scalia, by dispensing with the requirement that sentencers consider an array of mitigating circumstances. . The death penalty isn't discriminatory. In McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), the Court held that statistical evidence of racial discrimination in death sentencing can't establish a violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. To win an appeal under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court requires an appellant to prove the decision makers in his or her case acted with intent to discriminate. 3. Executions deter would-be criminals from committing crimes. 4.

It is cheaper for the government to kill murderers than to keep them in prison for the duration of their lives. 5. The few mistakes that are made in carrying out the death penalty are offset by its crime prevention and economic benefits. 6. Polls show the vast majority of Americans favor the death penalty for murderers. 7. Society has a moral right to punish the most violent criminals by taking their lives. Some violent criminals are vile, wicked persons who deserve to die. Evaluating the debate over capital punishment

A substantial body of empirical studies shows that the administration of capital punishment is arbitrary, that the costs of trials and multiple appeals make the death penalty more expensive than housing an offender in prison for life, that the death penalty does not deter violent crime, and that during the twentieth century more than 400 people were erroneously convicted in capital cases. Although the Supreme Court denied the racial discrimination argument in McCleskey v. Kemp, statistical evidence supports the claim that the burden of capital punishment falls upon the poor and the underprivileged.

Studies show that a disproportionate number of individuals sentenced to death are members of minority groups and that nearly all individuals on death row are indigents. The argument that the death penalty should be retained because the majority of the people in the United States want it, equates the numbers in support of a position with the correctness of it. The rightness or wrongness of the death penalty logically is neither helped nor hindered by the numbers in support. Opinions don't logically equate to factual knowledge.

Deciding whether or not society has a moral right to take the lives of murderers and other violent criminals requires a value judgment. In support of their position, proponents of the death penalty cite the Judeo-Christian tradition of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth. ” Opponents counter by emphasizing New Testament admonitions to “turn the other cheek” and “to love thy neighbor. ” In a Nutshell Yes| No| 1. Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. 2. It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights. . The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system. 4. We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance. 5. It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. 6. Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent. 7. Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. 8. Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death. 9.

The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process. 10. The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death. 11. Mentally ill patients may be put to death. 12. It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes. 13. It often draws top talent laywers who will work for little or no cost due to the publicity of the case and their personal beliefs against the morality of the death penalty, increasing the chances a technicality or a manipulated jury will release a guilt person. 4. It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life. | 1. The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. 2. It creates another form of crime deterrent. 3. Justice is better served. 4. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. 5. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. 6. DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. 7.

Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. 8. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. 9. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. | Overview/Background The United States remains in the minority of nations in the world that still uses death as penalty for certain crimes. Many see the penalty as barbaric and against American values. Others see it as a very important tool in fighting violent pre-meditated murder.

Two things have once again brought this issue to national debate. One is the release of some highly publicized studies that show a number of innocents had been put to death. The second is the issue of terrorism and the need to punish its perpetrators. Yes ? Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. Most people don't realize that carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 times more than keeping that same criminal in prison for the rest of his life. How can this be?

It has to do with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out. It's not unusual for a prisoner to be on death row for 15-20 years. Judges, attorneys, court reporters, clerks, and court facilities all require a substantial investment by the taxpayers. Do we really have the resources to waste? ? It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights. Whether it's a firing squad, electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, or hanging, it's barbaric to allow state-sanctioned murder before a crowd of people.

We condemn people like Ahmadinejad, Qaddafi, and Kim Jong Il when they murder their own people while we continue to do the same (although our procedures for allowing it are obviously more thorough). The 8th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution prevents the use of "cruel and unusual punishment". Many would interpret the death penalty as violating this restriction. ? The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system. The U. S. court system goes to enormous lengths before allowing a death sentence to be carried out. All the appeals, motions, hearings, briefs, etc. onopolize much of the time of judges, attorneys, and other court employees as well as use up courtrooms & facilities. This is time & space that could be used for other unresolved matters. The court system is tremendously backed up. This would help move things along. ? We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance. The "eye for an eye" mentality will never solve anything. A revenge philosophy inevitably leads to an endless cycle of violence. Why do you think the Israeli-Palestine conflict has been going on for 60 years?

Why do you think gang violence in this country never seems to end? It is important to send a message to society that striking back at your enemy purely for revenge will always make matters worse. ? It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Yes, we want to make sure there is accountability for crime and an effective deterrent in place; however, the death penalty has a message of "You killed one of us, so we'll kill you". The state is actually using a murder to punish someone who committed a murder. Does that make sense? Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent. For those of you who don't feel much sympathy for a murderer, keep in mind that death may be too good for them. With a death sentence, the suffering is over in an instant. With life in prison, the pain goes on for decades. Prisoners are confined to a cage and live in an internal environment of rape and violence where they're treated as animals. And consider terrorists. Do you think they'd rather suffer the humiliation of lifelong prison or be "martyred" by a death sentence?

What would have been a better ending for Osama bin Laden, the bullet that killed him instantly, or a life of humiliation in an American prison (or if he was put through rendition to obtain more information). ? Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. It's no secret that anti-Americanism is rampant around the world. One of the reasons is America's continued use of the death penalty. We're seen as a violent, vengeful nation for such a policy. This is pretty much the same view that Europeans had of America when we continued the practice of slavery long after it had been banned in Europe. Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death. Many states require any jury members to be polled during the pre-trial examination to be sure they have the stomach to sentence someone to death before they're allowed to serve. Even if they're against the death penalty, they still may lie in order to get on the panel. The thought of agreeing to kill someone even influences some jury members to acquit rather than risk the death. Some prosecutors may go for a lesser charge rather than force juries into a death-or-acquit choice.

Obviously, in all these situations, justice may not be served. ? The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process. One victim's innocent family is obviously forced to suffer from a capital murder, but by enforcing a death sentence, you force another family to suffer. Why double the suffering when we don't have to? ? The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death. There are several documented cases where DNA testing showed that innocent people were put to death by the government.

We have an imperfect justice system where poor defendants are given minimal legal attention by often lesser qualified individuals. Some would blame the court system, not that death penalty itself for the problems, but we can't risk mistakes. ? Mentally ill patients may be put to death. Many people are simply born with defects to their brain that cause them to act a certain way. No amount of drugs, schooling, rehabilitation, or positive reinforcement will change them. Is it fair that someone should be murdered just because they were unlucky enough to be born with a brain defect.

Although it is technically unconstitutional to put a mentally ill patient to death, the rules can be vague, and you still need to be able to convince a judge and jury that the defendant is in fact, mentally ill. ? It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes. Criminals usually are looked down upon by society. People are disgusted by the vile, unconscionable acts they commit and feel tremendous sympathy for the victims of murder, rape, etc. However, the death penalty has a way of shifting sympathy away from the victims and to the criminals themselves.

An excellent example is the execution a few years ago of former gang leader "Tookie" Williams. He was one of the original members of the notorious Crips gang, which has a long legacy of robbery, assault, and murder. This is a man who was convicted with overwhelming evidence of the murder of four people, some of whom he shot in the back and then laughed at the sounds they made as they died. This is a man who never even took responsibility for the crimes or apologized to the victims -- NOT ONCE! These victims had kids and spouses, but instead of sympathy for them, sympathy shifted to Tookie. Candlelight vigils were held for him.

Websites like savetookie. org sprang up. Protests and a media circus ensued trying to prevent the execution, which eventually did take place -- 26 years after the crime itself! There are many cases like this, which make a mockery of the evil crimes these degenerates commit. ? It often draws top talent laywers who will work for little or no cost due to the publicity of the case and their personal beliefs against the morality of the death penalty, increasing the chances a technicality or a manipulated jury will release a guilt person. Top attorneys are world-class manipulators. They know how to cover up facts and misdirect thinking.

They know how to select juries sympathetic to their side. They know how to find obscure technicalities and use any other means necessary to get their client off without any punishment. Luckily, most criminal defendants cannot afford to hire these top guns; they must make do with a low-paid public defender or some other cheaper attorney. However, a death penalty case changes everything. First of all, a death penalty case almost always garners significant media attention. Lawyers want that exposure, which enhances their name recognition & reputation for potential future plantiffs and defendants.

Second of all, thousands of attorneys have made their personal crusade in life the stomping out of the death penalty. Entire organizations have sprung up to fight death penalty cases, often providing all the funding for a legal defense. For an example, look no further than the Casey Anthony trial, in which a pool of top attorneys took on a high profile death penalty case and used voir dire and peremptory challenges to craft one of the stupidest juries on record, who ended up ignoring facts and common sense or release an obviously guilty woman who killed her daughter.

After the "not guilty" verdict was rendered, defense attorneys such as Cheney Mason went into long-winded speeches for the media about the evils of the death penalty. ? It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life. Perhaps the biggest reason to ban the death penalty is that it doesn't change the fact that the victim is gone and will never come back. Hate, revenge, and anger will never cure the emptiness of a lost loved one. Forgiveness is the only way to start the healing process, and this won't happen in a revenge-focused individual. No 1. 2.

The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. Some family members of crime victims may take years or decades to recover from the shock and loss of a loved one. Some may never recover. One of the things that helps hasten this recovery is to achieve some kind of closure. Life in prison just means the criminal is still around to haunt the victim. A death sentence brings finality to a horrible chapter in the lives of these family members. 3. It creates another form of crime deterrent. Crime would run rampant as never before if there wasn't some way to deter people from committing the acts.

Prison time is an effective deterrent, but with some people, more is needed. Prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime. 4. Justice is better served. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, doesn't it make sense that the punishment for the perpetrator also be death? 5. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. It's time we put the emphasis of our criminal justice system back on protecting the victim rather than the accused.

Remember, a person who's on death row has almost always committed crimes before this. A long line of victims have been waiting for justice. We need justice for current and past victims. 6. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. What about people already sentenced to life in prison. What's to stop them from murdering people constantly while in prison? What are they going to do--extend their sentences? Sure, they can take away some prison privileges, but is this enough of a deterrent to stop the killing? What about a person sentenced to life who happens to escape? What's to stop him from killing anyone who might ry to bring him in or curb his crime spree? 7. DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. One of the biggest arguments against the death penalty is the possibility of error. Sure, we can never completely eliminate all uncertainty, but nowadays, it's about as close as you can get. DNA testing is over 99 percent effective. And even if DNA testing and other such scientific methods didn't exist, the trial and appeals process is so thorough it's next to impossible to convict an innocent person.

Remember, a jury of 12 members must unanimously decide there's not even a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. The number of innocent people that might somehow be convicted is no greater than the number of innocent victims of the murderers who are set free. 8. Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. Perhaps the biggest reason to keep the death penalty is to prevent the crime from happening again. The parole system nowadays is a joke. Does it make sense to anyone outside the legal system to have multiple "life" sentences 20 years or other jiverish?

Even if a criminal is sentenced to life without possibility of parole, he still has a chance to kill while in prison, or even worse, escape and go on a crime/murder spree. 9. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. Prisons across the country face the problem of too many prisoners and not enough space & resources. Each additional prisoner requires a portion of a cell, food, clothing, extra guard time, and so on. When you eliminate the death penalty as an option, it means that prisoner must be housed for life.

Thus, it only adds to the problem of an overcrowded prison system. 10. ------------------------------------------------- It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. The number of criminal cases that are plea bargained (meaning the accused admits guilt in return for a lesser sentence or some other concession) can be as high as 80 or 90 percent of cases. With the time, cost, and personnel requirements of a criminal case, there really isn't much of a choice.

The vast majority of people that are arraigned are in fact guilty of the crime they are accused. Even if you believe a defendant only deserves life in prison, without the threat of a death sentence, there may be no way to get him to plead guilty and accept the sentence. If a case goes to trial, in addition to the enormous cost, you run the chance that you may lose the case, meaning a violent criminal gets off scot free. The existence of the death penalty gives prosecutors much more flexibility and power to ensure just punishments. Introduction

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer