On Tuesday, July 29, 1981, eight year-old Cheryl Ziemba, and her four year-old brother, Christopher, bodies were found in a coal dump in Old Forge, Pennsylvania. Only two days after the bodies were discovered, fifteen-year old, Joseph Aulisio, a member of the search party, was arrested for the murders. He had lured the two kids into a house that was under construction and owned by his father and shot them from only 10 feet away, Cheryl was shot in the head and Christopher had been shot in the chest. To this day there has been no motive established as to why Aulisio wished to kill these two kids. Nearly a year later in May 1982, a jury sentenced the then sixteen year-old to death, who was casually chewing gum when the jurors presented him with his sentence and then turned to his dad and pumped his fist in the air yelling “It’s party time!”. It has been 34 years since that conviction, and Aulisio continues to sit in jail with no signs of remorse. So why wouldn’t the death penalty be enforced with someone so inhumane and removed from society? Why not eliminate this being from society ...
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.
On the morning of April 19, 1995 a former soldier, named Timothy McVeigh, drove a truck outside of the Alfred P. Murrah government building in downtown Oklahoma City. Inside the truck was a homemade explosive device. McVeigh got out of the truck and walked to his getaway car. At precisely 9:02 a.m. the truck bomb exploded. Killing 168 people, including 19 children. Over 600 people were injured and close to 300 surrounding buildings took damage. This attack at Oklahoma City was the worst terrorist attack on American soil, until 9/11. Six years after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building McVeigh was executed at “United States Penitentiary” in Terre Haute, Indiana. At 7:14 a.m. on July 11, 2001 McVeigh was put to death by lethal injection. This terrorist was put to death and got the justice that was deserved. Now the American justice system is flawed especially when it comes to the death penalty, but
Murder, a common occurrence in American society, is thought of as a horrible, reprehensible atrocity. Why then, is it thought of differently when the state government arranges and executes a human being, the very definition of premeditated murder? Capital punishment has been reviewed and studied for many years, exposing several inequities and weaknesses, showing the need for the death penalty to be abolished.
An inmate by the name of Gary Graham drew several protestors to a Huntsville unit in the year 2000; they were there in opposition to Graham’s execution. This day finally came after nineteen years on death row and four appeals. With him being a repeat offender he was not new to this side of the justice system, but after being put in prison he became a political activist who worked to abolish the death penalty. People who stood against his execution argued that his case still had reasonable doubt, he was rehabilitating himself, and his punishment would cause major harm to his family. Aside from that you have the advocates arguing that you have to set example for others, so you must carry out the punishment that was given, and while the execution may harm the offender’s family it will give the victims’ families closure for his crimes.
It is the firm belief and position here that committing such a crime as murder is punishable by death. Americans should take a position for anyone on death row, to be executed sooner rather than later.
As every day passes, prisoners wait patiently in their dreadful chamber, awaiting their execution day, which tends to result to physical and psychological torture. Consequently, this remains as the so-called righteousness of the death penalty, which is supposed to get rid of murderers, radicalism, and criminals that perform sodomy. Though, there are times when capital punishment goes horribly wrong, initiating the death of innocent prisoners, and instigating the prisoner to go through atrocious anguish. Moreover, the death penalty leads to additional damage to the victim’s family, since the death penalty entails the family to relieve the agony and grief of the death of their loved one for many years. Furthermore, capital punishment remains as the fundamental block to eradicate criminals, however, there are numerous drawbacks to the death penalty that lead to additional damage than solving the problem; therefore, Americans shouldn’t support capital punishment, unless their prepared to perform the undesirable job of killing the prisoners.
It's dark and cold, the fortress-like building has cinderblock walls, and death lurks around the perimeter. A man will die tonight. Under the blue sky, small black birds gather outside the fence that surrounds the building to flaunt their freedom. There is a gothic feel to the scene, as though you have stepped into a horror movie.
Since colonial times, approximately 13,000 people have been put to death using the death penalty? How do we know if any of those people were actually guilty? The Bills Of Rights outlines our rights as Americans in the United States. According to the 8th Amendment, there should be no excessive bail or fines nor there any kind of cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. Well that being said does that not go against what the death penalty is and what our 8th amendment stands for? How do you stand? In this paper I will list the reasons on why we should get rid of the death penalty which could really change how you feel on the how you stand.
In any justice system that is flawed and allows bias in certain cases, the death penalty should not be used as a means of punishment because of its irrevocable nature. When I came across Sarah Hawkins’ article regarding the case of Karla Faye Tucker, I was surprised to see the manifestation
Two major claims: death penalty serves as a deterrent and death penalty is morally justified because murderers can’t live and you have a right to kill them.
When someone is legally convicted of a capital crime, it is possible for their punishment to be execution. The Death Penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. Some believe the act of punishing a criminal by execution is completely inhumane, while others believe it is a necessary practice needed to keep our society safe. In this annotated bibliography, there are six articles that each argue on whether or not the death penalty should be illegalized. Some authors argue that the death penalty should be illegal because it does not act as a deterrent, and it negatively effects the victim’s families. Other scholar’s state that the death penalty should stay legalized because there is an overcrowding in prisons and it saves innocent’s lives. Whether or not the death penalty should be
Americans have argued over the death penalty since the early days of our country. In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes. As of year ended in 1999, in Texas, the state had executed 496 prisoners since 1930. The laws in the United States have change drastically in regards to capital punishment. An example of this would be the years from 1968 to 1977 due to the nearly 10 year moratorium. During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes.”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment. While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that is capital punishment being used for vengeance or as a deterrent.
The Ethics of Capital Punishment Ethics is "the study of standards of right and wrong. " philosophy dealing with moral conduct, duty and judgement. ' [1] Capital Punishment is the death penalty for a crime. The word "capital" in "capital punishment" refers to a person's head as in the past. people were often executed by severing their heads from their bodies.
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.
Crime is everywhere. 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. Some criminals commit a crime because they have no other option to survive, but some do it for fun. I do not advocate death penalty for everybody. A person, who stole bread from a grocery store, definitely does not deserve death penalty. However, a serial killer, who kills people for fun or for his personal gain, definitely deserves death penalty. Death penalty should continue in order to eliminate the garbage of our society. Not everybody deserves to die, but some people definitely do. 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. Finally, I believe in "lex tallionis" - a life for a life.