Is the Death Penalty an Effective Punishment?
Is the Death Penalty an Effective Punishment? Yes. In at least one important respect, it is. It simply cannot be argued that a killer, once executed, can ever kill again. The Death Penalty does not stop people from killing others. The only thing it does stop is killers from killing people again. Some statistics indicate that Capital
Punishment has killed more blacks then whites and more poor then rich.
There is nothing wrong with the Death Penalty. If someone kills another they should be punished. This process cost over 400,000 of dollars.
I would say my that money is well spent. If it is going to stop a crazy man from killing again then so be it. I don't know if it is immoral or cruel. I do know that no human should be able to play the part of God or the Devil. People are suppose to live and die, we can't make someone live if there no life. We can stop someone from dying when there alive.
Were not suppose to kill others. I do not think that a child the age of
12 and older should get away with murder just because there so young.
Adults think they wouldn't understand death. I knew what death was when
I was in 5th grade I was nine and my Grandfather died. I knew what that ment. I don't think it is right for a man that is 18 to be punished to the Death Penalty for killing a man. When a twelve year old boy who was playing with his daddy's gun and kills his best friend doesn't get but more then a few years in jail. Kids have a lot of power now days and some think they can get away with murder. I don't think it is right for some states to not have the Death Penalty and some to have it.
It ruins the purpose. It does not mean that people are going to stop in California just because there is one. No matter where you are there is going to be death. It is how the death was caused that you should be so worried about. Thirty-eight states currently have the death penalty.
More then 350 people have been executed in the USA since 1990. More then
3,300 others are on death row. The application of the death penalty is racist. Black and white people are the victims of violent crime, 82 % of people executed since 1977 have been convicted of killing white victi...
... middle of paper ...
...d that over one-third of all death row inmates are mentally retarded (with IQ's less the 70), and that nearly have are functionally illiterate.
More than 3,000 people were executed since 1930, nearly half were people of color. Eighty-five percent of those executed since 1977 were punished for killing white victims.
If we were to talk about a state like ....Ohio where 842 people have been executed since 1884. Of this number, only one white mad was executed for killing a black man.
The moral issue here is: Do we have the right to kill, or is that the right of God only? This does not excuse one who takes the life of another.
People who favor the death penalty often believe it helps reduce the number of violent crimes.
Could it be that as long as the state is killing, we are sending a message that killing is a way to solve problems? I would personally say no.
I think that in no way it would ever be ok for anyone to die unless it is just there time to go. People have to die sooner or later. It is just like saying that we should put all people that smoke in jail because that is attempt of murder to themselves. Smoking kills just not as quickly as a gun.
If a family member was murdered, a family member was murdered, age should not dictate if the punishment for homicide will be more lenient or not. If anyone not just juveniles has the capabilities to take someone's life and does so knowing the repercussions, they should be convicted as an adult. In the case of Jennifer Bishop Jenkins who lost her sister, the husband and their unborn child, is a strong advocate of juveniles being sentenced to life without parole. In her article “Jennifer Bishop Jenkins On Punishment and Teen Killers” she shows the world the other side of the spectrum, how it is to be the victim of a juvenile in a changing society where people are fighting against life sentences for juveniles. As she states in the article “There are no words adequate to describe what this kind of traumatic loss does to a victims family. So few who work on the juvenile offender side can truly understand what the victims of their crimes sometimes go through. Some never
This may in fact even mean ending any suffering, by personal choice when there is simply no hope of any happiness. Thus, this decision would have been judged proper according to the utilitarianism approach. Moreover, when the baby boomers begin to experience end of life issues, this may become a necessary solution to end the suffering when there is a shortage of caretakers of the
This is a controversial statement most will argue about. For many people it is wrong to kill no matter the circumstance for it is going against many of their own morals. An example would be their religion which states in the bible “Thou shall not kill”, but they themselves have killed for their own needs therefore
certainly do not make a right. You do not show society anything, by killing the
Given the universal human goal of survival of our species I submit, and the fact that morality is a supportive result of that goal, one should accept that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
If someone is nearing the end of his or her life naturally, and he or she seeks to end it earlier, then that person is justified to end it if the individual deems fit. If someone is in pain, alone, or depressed at an elderly age, and if they feel as though they have lived a happy life, we as a society should not force our decision onto someone who no longer wants to be a part of society.
Attention Graber: Everyone knows that in the United States killing is wrong and if you do kill you get punish for it. Holly Near an activist tells us “Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong?”
it is a rule that it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being (Singer, 2003). This view
"nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent person, whether a
Every day, millions of people are being diagnose with terminal illnesses or being seriously injured in accidents. Sometimes, those illnesses and accidents become long and agonizingly painful deaths. Although medication could briefly ease the pain, the long-term agony that the patient has to deal with is ceaseless. Undoubtedly, the human life has an enormous value and is for that reason that it should be preserved in all the possible ways. Nevertheless, when the terminal illness comes to its last stage, or the damage caused for an accident is too much to handle and the only option left is death, shouldn’t it be the patient’s decision to end its suffering and pain in a dignified way? Or in cases where the patient has an impediment to decide, shouldn’t the family have the option to give their loved one an end to its suffer? As part of a free society, euthanasia should be considered as a legal and humane option for patients suffering from terminal diseases and victims of accidents, mainly because is every human right to die in a decent way.
This essay will discuss the various views regarding the death penalty and its current status in the United States. It can be said that almost all of us are familiar with the saying “An eye for an eye” and for most people that is how the death penalty is viewed. In most people’s eyes, if a person is convicted without a doubt of murdering someone, it is believed that he/she should pay for that crime with their own life. However, there are some people who believe that enforcing the death penalty makes society look just as guilty as the convicted. Still, the death penalty diminishes the possibility of a convicted murderer to achieve the freedom needed to commit a crime again; it can also be seen as a violation of the convicted person’s rights going against the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
According to the law, children ages 7-15 legally do not know what is wrong or what is right to do. Children who do not know what is wrong or right can commit a crime without knowing how bad the consequences can be. Immature children do not know most factors the way regular human beings know and can commit more errors by accident than other human beings will commit on purpose. Immature children should not be sentenced to life because they rarely know the rules of life and unlike most adults; they do not know what is good or bad about it. For example, “juveniles are different from adults in terms of brain development and maturity levels” (Corrington 1). Crimes children or immatures can commit include killing someone in a fight, choking someone out, or running over someone by accident. Arguments can also build in by saying teenagers should get sentenced to life for being immature and doing things immaturely. If a young teenager runs over another teenager or children and kills them, of course the parents are going to want the responsible driver to pay for what they have done. Sometimes jail is not enough and the parents or family members of victims want to kill whoever was responsible for the disgrace that happened. A big percentage of people do not understand that young children do not know what adults are capable of doing if it was
death as a way to punish him or her for his crime. The history of the death penalty is a long and
"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time." -- David Grusin and Morgan Ames Much controversy exists on the question of whether a juvenile criminal should be punished to the same extent as an adult. Those who commit capital crimes, including adolescents, should be penalized according to the law. Age should not be a factor in the case of serious crimes.
Euthanasia is not about ending a life it is about stopping unbearable pain and suffering in those sentenced to a terminal illness where they...