More handpicked essays just for you.
Death penalty should be retained
History of unjust death penalties
History of the death penalty in the usa essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Thesis It is more reasonable to utilize the death penalty than to abolish it. The death penalty should not be abolished because (1) it deters people from committing murder and (2) because the death penalty gives peace of mind to the victims and their families and puts an end to the crime. Arguments for the thesis (1) The death penalty should not be abolished because the fear of the highest form of punishment will keep potential victims alive. (2) The death penalty should not be abolished because the families of the victims can only begin the healing process once the murderer is put to death. Response to objections to the thesis (1) Objection: The death penalty should be abolished because even the highest form of punishment will not remove the evil from society. Response: If the death penalty was abolished, the convicted murderer has the potential to escape and kill again. This will spread more evil and give the option to kill again to the murderer. (2) Objection: The execution of a convicted murderer will never bring the victims back to life. Therefore it serves no purpose other than to kill. Response: Resurrection has never been the purpose of the death penalty. The family members just want to start healing and they can’t while the perpetrator is still alive. Bibliography Van der Haag, Ernest and John P. Conrad, The Death Penalty: A Debate (New York: Plenum Press, 1983). Arlen Specter, “Congress must make Death Sentences Meaningful Again” (Human Events, July 1994). Hugo, Adam Bedau, Ed., The Death penalty in America: Current Controversies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) Blumstein, Cohen, Nagin, Deterrence and Incapacitation (National Academy Press January 1978) It is more reasonable to utilize the death penalty than to abolish it. The death penalty should not be abolished because (1) it deters people from committing murder and (2) because the death penalty gives peace of mind to the victims and their families and puts an end to the crime. The death penalty deters some people from committing heinous crimes and thereby also saves human lives. Not everyone will be deterred from committing heinous crimes because of the death penalty. However, since the death penalty is the highest penalty for crimes it will obviously evoke the most fear in a human being. This fear will save... ... middle of paper ... ...rt the healing process. If a state governed by law is to be able to show warmth, compassion and peace of mind to victims and their families, then the death penalty is the most effective way to bring this about. The argument to the above is that the death penalty does not bring back any victim to life, therefore, unnecessary. Just because someone has taken a life, it doesn’t mean that the convict’s life should also be taken. Is it fair to take a bad situation and make it worse? The death penalty will never sweep away the emotions and feelings of grief that the relatives and friends feel. Murdering the convicted murder would only cause more grief for his family, therefore, over time, grieving would become commonplace. Resurrection has never been the purpose of the death penalty. It is understood that the death penalty will not totally take away the emotions and feelings of the relatives, however the death penalty will ease those pains. The grief and despair would be considerably heavier to carry if the relatives knew that the perpetrator was only sentenced to prison and would be released after a period of time. Therefore, I feel that the death penalty will never become unnecessary.
Many people are led to believe that the death penalty doesn’t occur very often and that very few people are actually killed, but in reality, it’s quite the opposite. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1,359 people have been executed as a result of being on death row since 1977 to 2013. Even though this form of punishment is extremely controversial, due to the fact that someone’s life is at stake, it somehow still stands to this very day as our ultimate form of punishment. Although capital punishment puts murderers to death, it should be abolished because killing someone who murdered another, does not and will not make the situation any better in addition to costing tax payers millions of dollars.
Capital Punishment should NOT be abolished, because it is the only punishment that fits the
The death penalty provides the victim’s families closure.[5] While the victim themselves are not alive to gain any closure from the situation, the execution of the perpetrator does bring a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal.
The first argument is based on morality. One has an obligation the victims’ families so that they can have a sense of closure. Unfortunately, the murderer has deprived the victim’s family and friends of a loved one. Their grief begins with the murder. It may not end with the murderer’s execution, but the execution does bring about a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal—a feeling which often fails to arise while the murderer still lives on. A system in place for the purpose of granting justice cannot do so for the surviving victims, unless the murderer himself is put to death. The victim's family can feel traumatized knowing that the perpetrator is still alive. Although the victim and the victim's family cannot be restored to the status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closu...
...ne, no matter how heinous the crime. Capital punishment causes pain for the inmate, the inmate's family, the victim's family, and society as a whole. Death sentences should cease; instead of spending money on executions, states should use those funds to better the community and rehabilitate those individuals convicted. Every human life possesses value.
25 Hugo Adams Bedau, The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) 250.
“The Death Penalty in America: A Cultural and Historical Analysis.” Supreme Court Debates (2004): pp. 259-288.
... execute should not be made lightly, and tests should be done to ensure the right person is being punished for the crime that was committed. Taking away the person’s life who is responsible for the death of another person cannot bring the victim back and does not solve anything. Various people all over the world believe that the death penalty should not be supported and that it should be abolished. Many reasons exist for the abolition of the death penalty to take place including cost issues, religious issues, whether or not it acts as a deterrent, executing innocents and the harshness of the execution. Some may say the people who committed the most heinous crimes deserve to have justice served to them. However, even murderers are humans and should be treated fairly and justly. All people, even the guilty have a right to live; regardless of the crimes they committed.
To abolish capital punishment on this basis would be way off base. You would also have to get rid of prisons because they do not keep people from committing crimes. Texas A&M University collected data and the results are horrifying. In 1960 there were 56 executions and 9,140 murders in the past. In 1964 there were 15 executions and 9, 250 murders.
Pasquerella, Lynn. “The Death Penalty in the United States.” The Study Circle Resource Center of Topsfield Foundation. July 1991. Topsfield Foundation. 03 Feb 2011. Web.
The Death Penalty should be discontinued to the families, human rights, and statistics. The families of the victim and the family of the one, who committed the crime, have no closure at all. The death penalty is killing a human for being convicted of a terrible crime one family may think its right but both suffer by their lost ones. “Although true closure is never really possible for the families, studies have shown that the continual process, along with the returning to court for many years, force families to confront the gruesome details of the crime many times over, making it impossible to get on with their lives.
For the victim, or the victim’s family, they would be able to come to a place of closure knowing that the trauma they had just gone through will no longer be a problem. However, the family members would have to deal with the consequences of pursuing the death penalty. They would also still have to grieve, and deal with the trauma they went through, but it would be lot harder to move on knowing the convicted criminal is still alive. The family members of the convicted criminal to be executed will be upset about the outcome, but they would more then likely be upset about their loved one being involved in the first place.
Fein, Bruce. "Individual Rights and Responsibility - The Death Penalty, But Sparingly." Speech. American Bar Association. Feb. 2003. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.
The first reason why it should not be abolished is because the death penalty will reduce crime rate. Opposers say that the death penalty does not reduce the crime rate, but in my opinion it does reduce the crime rate. I believe if people actually think twice before committing a crime, and realize that they could hurt themselves or their family then they are going to slow their role and better themselves. The second reason
The death penalty is legal in thirty-two states. I shall argue that capital punishment should be abolished in our country because it is never moral to kill a human being no matter what they have done, because it often costs more money to keep someone on death row than to keep someone in prison for life, because of the men and women who are wrongly accused of a crime they did not commit, and because death is the easy way out.