Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Death penalty-to be or not to be? Sometimes crime cannot be punished enough. Sometimes crime is so cruel that there is no realistic punishment for it. There are too many victims out there, that suffered and their attacker gets a simple painless death. I am saying painless comparing to murders that happen every day that are simply horrifying. As Paul A. Winters says "If a person commits a uniquely gruesome murder, he deserves to be put to death" Winters et al. 154. So many murderers are convicted of the crime of murder and they only get years in jail. Their victims feel the pain, but imagine the pain and sorrow that the families of the victims feel, and that pain lasts for the rest of their lives. If someone from my family was killed, I wouldn't think a second what to do with the murderer. I would want him dead. Most of the families feel this way and the best way to stop the pain is to get rid off the cause of the pain. Death sentence is effective because it deters crimes, but many people argue that life without parole is much harder to serve for the person who committed the crime, "Abolitionist claim there are some alternative to the death penalty, they say that life without parole serves just as well" Guilmette 2. I agree that putting away the murderer is effective, but just isn't enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. As long as the murderer there is a small possibility that he could strike again. Capital punishment is the most effective weapon against the murderers; because no executed murderer has ever killed again. You cannot say that about those sentenced to prison. Death sentence also depends on the case. I am not saying that everybody who commits the murder should be placed on the death row. There are different types of the murder and every murder that was planned or intentional should be severely punished. As Hugo Adam Badeu says, "Despicable crimes should be dealt with realistically" Badeu et al. 131. I have no mercy for the killers, and nobody should have any mercy for anybody who does harm to another human being. Who gives a right to anyone to commit crime anyway? Michael Kronenwetter says, "The death penalty has always been considered especially appropriate for the crime of murder" Kronenwetter 6. Murder is the biggest crime and biggest offense, and it should be treated like that. Over the years, public safety has become a meaningless thing, not worth defending anymore, and the death penalty has been persecuted for just that reason. Every country in the world is ready and willing to kill thousands, even millions of human beings in brutal, merciless way to defend their nation from the aggression of other countries. I don't see why public safety doesn't deserve as much respect and protection as a nation's national security does. In fact, it can be argued that supporting armies and war is far more barbarous than the death penalty is. The whole reason why nations and government exist is to defend their citizens from vicious criminals. When it fails to do that, they become of little use to its citizens. I think that the people in all the nations will soon realize that capital punishment, like the military or police force and even taxes is an unavoidable consequence of every civilized society, and it will no longer be the question of whether or not a nation should have the death penalty, but rather how it should be used. "According to polls, more than 70 percent of Americans feel that murderers deserve the death penalty" Winters et al. 168. What can you say to the parents of the kids that were killed in Columbine High School, their kids will never come back, and their killers were kids, too. What can be done about juvenile murderers? "President Clinton proposed that the age at which penalty could be applied should be reduced from 21 to 18" O'Rourke 1. I agree with that and if that law could be put in place, no killer would be protected. Everybody who is mature enough to the consequences of the things they do should be equally punished as everybody else. Most of the people don't agree with this, but that's just the way it is. As I said laws change and convicted could be out on the streets again, and they could strike again. Those who advocate the abolition of capital punishment have supported their cause with many arguments. They have claimed that some have been wrongly sent to death row, while other decisions have been unfairly applied to minorities and the poor. Others argued for the sanctity of human life, as well as the expense involved in capital punishment. But those who believe in the opposition of the death penalty are often misled. They should consider the following cases that underlie the support for capital punishment, for it is certainly the only way to deal with the cruelty of crime that has infected our society. Capital punishment was once supported by the theory of deterrence, yet studies have shown weaknesses in this argument. Although the death penalty may not have an effect in deterring crime, it protects society from the threat of the same criminal committing a violation again when they are set free. A notable example is the case of Ali Agca, who attempted to assassinate the Pope after he had previously been tried and convicted of murder. Opponents may often refute this by suggesting a life sentence without parole, yet research has shown that the crime rates in prisons are gradually increasing. What happens when a person sentenced with life imprisonment kills another inmate or guard during that time? This brings about reconsideration for those who advocate sentences without parole instead of capital punishment. A second way to look at the validation of capital punishment is the concept of retribution. Retribution cannot be confused with the concept of revenge. It is society"s right of intolerance to heinous crimes that bring about the need for death row. Criminals have not only injured their victims but also the important values that govern society, which is the respect for life. Society has a responsibility to protect its citizens, doing what is necessary and appropriate to those who break the laws. Thus, capital punishment is necessary to ensure the priceless value of human lives. Thirdly, some people urge to abolish the death penalty because of their concern for the sanctity of human life. That is precisely the reason why this form of crime prevention should be maintained. Capital punishment is different from murder because the person being executed had committed a crime and was tried and found guilty. An execution carried out after a trial cannot be compared to a murder committed by a criminal. Lastly, it is suggested and often proven that the death penalty discriminates against the poor and minority groups. One must see that this problem does not concern the justification of the penalty, but the unfair way in which it is distributed. This problem may be improved by properly reviewing the cases, imposing decisions without regard to race or class. This can be achieved so that all defendants receive equal protection ground. Capital punishment has proven to have good benefits upon the country in determining the consequences that criminals deserve. This is needed to ensure the safety and moral values of society. If this is the case, there is no need for us to consider the expenses involved in the death penalty. Certainly human lives are more important, for it may easily be yours. We should not abolish capital punishment, but hold our country accountable for properly exercising the death penalty upon those who deserve it. Many criminals don"t fear the judicial system. They know that they will get out in ten years if they murder someone. They are not afraid of jail or their punishment. How can we force them to stop killing or stealing if they are not afraid of the punishment we give them. Most rational men are afraid of death. They don"t want to die. There are also men that don"t fear death, but enjoy killing. They must be controlled, but if they are sentenced to life they are soon free to kill again. Again, I am not saying we should kill all the men in jail and any other criminal in the world. That is not the answer either, but we must have the death penalty as an option so that they will be afraid to break the law, and to control those who don"t fear death but love to break the law. What do you do with men who do not fear the loss of their life? One criminal of America, Carl Panzram was quoted in saying, "In my life I have murdered 21 human beings. I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, arsons and last but not least I have committed sodomy on more than 1000 male human beings. For all of these things I am not the least bit sorry. I have no conscience so that does not worry me. I don"t believe in Man, God nor devil. I hate the whole damned human race including myself" Panzram 1. Men like this who do not care for any law and do every unthinkable act are being supported in some jails around the world. What do you do with people who only want to kill and cause chaos? There is very little you can do, especially if they do not care if they are imprisoned. Panzram cares for nothing. He doesn"t mind his fifteen years in prison, or even his twenty-five. Panzram was executed and can no longer bother man kind, but there are others like him. Australia has abolished the death sentence. They can no longer control the men like Panzram. Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 innocent people in Tasmania. He is now being supported by the people of Australia. There is one option, which Australia no longer has. They cannot put this man to death, they are not allowed. This cannot be the case in other countries, so that those criminals like Panzram and Bryant, will be able to do what they want and not be executed for it. We must keep the death penalty for the people like this; people who like to kill and that don"t fear imprisonment. The death penalty should be maintained"¦
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 1764 Views: 267 Comments: 0
Death penalty-to be or not to be? Sometimes crime cannot be punished enough. Sometimes crime is so cruel that there is no realistic punishment for it. There are too many victims out there, that suffered and their attacker gets a simple painless death. I am saying painless comparing to murders that happen every day that are simply horrifying. As Paul A. Winters says "If a person commits a uniquely gruesome murder, he deserves to be put to death" Winters et al. 154. So many murderers are convicted of the crime of murder and they only get years in jail. Their...
like Panzram. Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 innocent people in Tasmania. He is now being supported by the people of Australia. There is one option, which Australia no longer has. They cannot put this man to death, they are not allowed. This cannot be the case in other countries, so that those criminals like Panzram and Bryant, will be able to do what they want and not be executed for it. We must keep the death penalty for the people like this; people who like to kill and that don"t fear imprisonment.

The death penalty should be maintained…

Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

The constitutions of most of our...The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson, 1824 Should guns be banned in America? Should guns be banned? This is one of the widest asked questions. There are those who believe that gun's should be banned, as guns are the number one killer. All around the world, small arms stocks were destroyed in the hope to lower the amount of guns in the world. South Africa's destruction of 24 000 small arms today is part of worldwide small arms destructions "“ 6 000 illegal guns were destroyed in Cambodia, 1 700 in Mozambique, and 10 000 weapons were destroyed in Brazil. Through these destructions governments from around the world are showing their support for the regulation of the small arms trade "“ a trade that kills an estimated 500 000 people each year. Handguns and other firearms have a long tradition in American civilization. The right to bear arms is an American right featured in the second Amendment of the Constitution. In the 18th century, when the constitution was written, times were different; there was a need for armed citizens to insure the safety of the society as a whole. Contemporarily the police department preserves the safety of society and the need for armed citizens is out of date. The founding fathers of the Constitution could presumably never imagine the horrendous outcome of their actions. Every year too many lives are claimed as the result of the American government's inability to fully face up to effects of the issue. Compared to other western countries that have considerably stricter gun control laws America is still viewed as "The Wild-Wild West". The growing gun related death toll in the U.S. has to come to a turning point. Stripping away the constitutional right to bear arms might have the effect that only criminals will have access to guns. It is important to understand that in a society where both criminals and law abiding citizens have access to guns the likeliness of an innocent person getting shot, when both parties are waving guns, is probably greater than if only criminals have guns. A ban on firearms might not be appealing as a short-term solution but it is important that people don't limit their thinking to their generation and not think about the safety of their children, grandchildren and the society people are creating today for them to live in. The main obstacle in removing firearms from citizens in the U.S. is the second Amendment of the Constitution. It reads: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The second Amendment can be interpreted as every citizen right to bear arms. However the key word is "Militia", meaning soldiers or defenders of the State. In the late 18th century, when the Constitution was written, times were very different than those of contemporary America. People were scared of possible invasions from Native Americans, the English, and other nationalities. By "a well regulated Militia"¦" the founding fathers probably meant that citizens could have a muscot standing in the corner just in case anything would happen. Note that the writers of the Constitution added, "A well regulated"¦" in front of the word Militia. That would most likely reveal a controversy in writing this Amendment, some of the founding fathers might have foreseen the possibility of a misinterpretation of this Amendment. In the U.S. there are approximately 200 million privately owned guns, which is statistically close to a gun per person and places more than one gun per home on average O'Donnell 771. In other words, guns are all around. This effects, without a doubt, the whole society structure and the citizens that live within its boundaries. The children that live within a gun infested society are going to suffer the consequences. In fact, kids between the ages 16 and 19 have the highest handgun victimization rate among all age groups. It's not hard to understand why, since there are on average more than one gun per household, kids are likely to find firearm and in some cases even use it. Here are a couple of incidents that occurred not so long ago. All are witness statements taken down by the police and are all in favor of the government to take action: "A shopkeeper who was shot dead in a robbery stepped in front of her killers to save her daughter, said her husband." "Thieves killed Marion Bates, 64, in front of her daughter Xanthe in an attack at their family jewelry store in Arnold, Nottingham, on Tuesday." "A man has died and another has been injured after a drive-by shooting in Hertfordshire." "Police say two men came under fire- most possibly from an automatic weapon- outside the Physical Limit Health and Fitness Club in Brewery road in Hoddesdon Gun Control in the United States of America is a topic that has had some criticism and support by many citizens. The critical people of this topic believe that the guns do not kill people; it is the people that kill people. The supporters of this topic believe that guns lead to violence and a feeling of power over others. They also believe that if guns were eliminated from the public, then violence and death would decrease heavily in this country. These two opposing views leave the federal government open to a decision on whether or not to abolish one of our Constitutional rights, or to keep allowing people the right to own a gun. The majority of crimes committed in the United States were accompanied by a weapon, which was usually a gun. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research dedicates its service to prevent gun-related deaths and injuries. Studies have proven that in 1997 there were 32,436 gun related deaths which calculated out equals 88 deaths a day. A study by researchers from the University of Chicago, John Lott and David Mustard, showed that violent crime is reduced when citizens have a law that allows them to carry concealed weapons. In 1994 a crime bill was passed that included an assault weapons ban that outlawed the manufacturing and selling of semiautomatic weapons and prohibits the manufacturing of copies. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research was established in 1995 and applies an approach to informing the public about guns. The Center attempts to educate the public about firearm injuries and new gun policies. The Center tries to prove that the safety of guns can be regulated as we would regulate the safety of other consumer goods. The Center looks into legal and public strategies to reduce the amounts of injuries and deaths due to the use of guns. The Center creates and evaluates policies to restrict the availability of weapons to high risk users. The faculty of the Center evaluates the effect of gun laws such as those banning the Saturday Night Specials, or permitting the carrying of a concealed weapon. The Center also conducts surveys to find out from the public what people think about gun laws and policies There is like all arguments, a reason why guns should not be banned. There are reasons which have to be accounted for such as the quote "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.". For almost as long as guns have been around gun control has been a major issue throughout the world. As we look back on the past we find that gun control, its is said that gun control doesn't really help reduce crime. Another down side of gun control is that if the government takes away the right to own weapons then they will start to think they can take other rights away. With every new anti gun law passed the crime rate in the United States escalates. For example if you look at the state of Texas or any other state where pro gun laws were recently passed, that allow non felon citizens to purchase and carry a handgun, you can see that crime rates have gone down in these states. It appears that if criminals feel threatened, because their victims may have a gun, they are less likely to attack people. This example shows how gun laws that restrict guns are ineffective because when a law that allows guns is passed crime rates don't go up but actually go down when more people have guns. "Gun laws fail because they do not address the issue. The issue is not possession of firearms, but misuse of firearms. We cannot expect criminals to abide by gun laws when they have already shown a disregard for law and order by their criminal activity. The only people ever affected by gun laws are peaceful, law abiding citizens, who never abuse their firearms right. Recent research is finding gun laws do not reduce the amount of violent crime in our society. Gun laws have succeeded only in disarming the law abiding and making the criminals' work environment safer I submit that our concern should be to make the environment for honest citizens, and this, gun laws have failed to do." Thomas Jefferson predicted these same results when he said, "Laws that forbid the Carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." If someone is a criminal they either don't really care about breaking the law or they don't plan on getting caught. It is absurd to pass laws that restrict law abiding citizens from owning weapons because it isn't the citizens, that are obeying the laws,that should be punished for the wrong doing of the criminals. A robber is not going to stop and think wow I better not hold up this store, with this gun, just because it is illegal. Robbing a store is illegal in the first place, but the robber is still going to rob the store, so what is the point of making guns illegal. The law shouldn't be on the gun it should be against the person using the gun. The gun itself did nothing wrong. If a robber robs a store the gun is not thinking or moving by itself so it can't be blamed for the crime.   

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson, 1824 Should guns be banned in America? Should guns be banned? This is one of the widest asked questions. There...

Words: 1779 View(s): 310 Comment(s): 0