1. I think converting their sentences would definitely help, especially regarding the 17 innocent people. You can always free someone if you find out that person didn’t do the crime, but if that person was executed it is final. However, I don’t think that being in prison for your entire life is better than getting the death penalty, because in both cases your life gets taken away from you. It might even be better for some people to have their life ended, since they don’t have to think about what they did for the rest of the time in prison.
Another point is that all the other injustices mentioned, like the prisoners mostly being poor, black, and possibly convicted in an unfair process, don’t go away by just changing their sentence.
Looking at the argument of deterrence, it doesn’t really matter if the prisoners are being held in prison for their entire life or executed in my mind. Either way, they won’t be able to commit another crime and I think both punishments are so strong that they could prevent other people from committing crimes. Considering retribution, the change in sentence is essential. In the retributivist
…show more content…
argument we want to find a punishment that is proportional to what was done. That being said, some might have a problem if the people on the death row killed their victims, and then don’t get killed for that themselves. If we want to look at the situation from a more utilitarian point of view, we should consider how the family and friends of the victims are affected if the prisoners wouldn’t get killed.
One might say that it helps the families to come to terms with what happened if they know that the killer of their loved one got their fair punishment by dying too. They know that that person can never get out of prison anymore and hurt someone else. But, some families could maybe deal better with the situation if they talk with the murderer and forgive him. They could have the view that violence is not the right response to violence. For that part, I believe everyone has a different view on what would help them grief. Important is, that the affected family members feel that it is fair what happened to the convicted, so that they don’t have to suffer even
more. 2. I would prefer the rehabilitation strategy over punishment. On this topic, I like the saying ‘why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?’. It pretty much sums up my point of view. I get that some people might find comfort in knowing that the wrongdoer has or had to suffer. But I believe we focus too much on the negative part, instead of on the positive. What happened happened, and by spending an enormous amount of money, energy and attention on making those people suffer, that doesn’t change. Instead, we should focus those resources on the future and care more about how we can help those people, because something is obviously wrong with them. Not necessarily that they are mentally ill, but if you kill someone, then something isn’t right within you. The amounts of money we spend on imprisoning people and letting them waste their life could be used to try and better their mental state, so that at some point they can return to society. It does not mean letting everyone get away with killing people or not preventing them from future crimes by freeing them. But, I think everyone can get better and deserves a second chance, which makes the Swedish method sound very appealing to me.
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.
Families do not receive the privilege to see their family members again so to equal out the justices, the one that has committed the crime should get the punish they deserve. Just in record, the death penalty will do no good because they will never have the time to think about what they did. They should serve jail time a minimal of ten years with no parole. Let’s us start by education are children in a young age of what is right and wrong and we can make a
In the movie Dead Man Walking, Earl Delacroix, the father of a murder victim, is seen at the funeral of the murderer, Matthew Poncelet, after his execution. While there, he says that he hasn’t found the peace he thought he would have after Matthew was executed and that his heart was still filled with hatred (Dead Man Walking.) This is the case for many families, capital punishment may give the impression that the murder victim’s family gains closure from the execution of the murderer, but that is rarely the case; even years after the execution has taken place, some family members of the victim suffer from unresolved grief and the murderer’s family is also affected in a negative manner. Capital Punishment is often viewed as the “right” option to put the families out of their pain and suffering, but in many cases, it’s just not effective in providing closure for the families and might make things worse; therefore, it should not be a valid reason for execution.
Main Point 1: Imagine someone that has been accused of murder and sentenced to death row has to spend almost 17-20 years in jail and then one day get kill. Then later on the person that they killed was not the right person.
With the field of philosophy, the concept of "desert" suggests the status of deserving a particular response based upon prior action. The term is often invoked within conversations dealing with blame and justice. However, philosophers disagree on whether desert justifies responsive behaviors such as punishment or revenge. This debate is particularly significantly within the context of a legal system that purports to punish criminals in a manner that is consistent with their crimes.
...already in there for life, there is nothing to stop him or her from killing other prisoners on a spree. The death penalty ensures more safety in that sense, because the prisoner will most likely consider his punishment of life sentence as bad enough and not want anything worse.
In addition, Capital punishment is often justified with the argument that by executing locked up murderers. Plenty of Americans citizens argue against deterrence as the statistical evidence doesn't confirm that deterrence works. Some of those executed may not have been capable of being deterred because of medical problem; a few of some capital offense are devoted in such an emotional state that the perpetrator did not think about the possible consequences. No one knows whether the death penalty deters more than life imprisonment. Deterrence is most effective when the punishment happens soon after the crime to make an analogy; when we were growing up as children we learns not to put our hands in the fire, because the consequence is instant pain. The more the legal process takes for the punishment of the crime, either in time, or certainty, the less effective a deterrent the punishment will probably be.
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.
wonder how many truly innocent people were put to death before the improvements in many areas such as how DNA testing is collected and tested. With more improvements made each year with technology we may find out more and more that people are innocent. But what should be done about the inmates who have been but to death already that are innocent? Should there be a review process of each current person who is on death row to make sure they are truly guilty of their crimes so no more innocent lives are
capital punishment? With receiving life without parole the person has no chance of release by a parole board, even with good behavior. However, life sentences gives an inmate family and lawyer time to prove their innocence if they did not commit a crime. The wrongful execution of an innocent person is an injustice that can never be rectified. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty, 154 cases where men and women have been released from Death Row nationally, some only minutes away from execution. Inmates sentenced to capital punishment in recent years have had the privilege to get freedom due to the improvement of technology and how DNA evidence can prove they did not commit the crime. For example, my uncle who was sentenced to capital murder had evidence that could be tested for his DNA. During his trial evidence proved that his DNA was on none of the evidence presented but he had potential eye witness to identify him. The eye witnessed were paid friends of the other suspect involved in the crime. The witnesses later came back after his conviction and revealed they were paid and they lied about the stories. He was later executed but was never given a free chance to prove his innocence. It can be conceded that, if the maximum sentence an inmate could be given it could help free more innocent people. Supporters of the capital punishment feel it is beneficial because if a person kills someone they should be
A murderer may have caused pain and suffering for the family of their victim, and they deserve the same fate. Pain should never be brought upon an innocent person, but a murderer isn't innocent. The murderer doesn't think about the suffering they cause among the family of their victim(s). Some victims could be very young, and they may not have lived to see their lives unfold.
"Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder... People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death... life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death... Therefore, a life sent...
...t on them, and they were “caught” doing these wrong things, they would most likely change. With this change, those 100+ executions from last year, can become a lower number. In my eyes, no one deserves to die, especially if they/we aren’t even sure that the person committed the accused crime.
With the information provided it's hard to tell what the end result will be. From the history of when the first death penalty laws were made to when the United States came up with the juvenile justice system in Illinois. With many opinions in the world we the people will have to make a decision sooner or later. After all it is up to the justice system to decide on what to do with these criminals
Secondly, many believe that capital punishment is right because of the justice given to the victim’s family. These family members feel l...