Death Penalty: Pro or Con
Here is another policy debate and another chance for you to think about where you stand on another major issue.
The economic argument in favor of the death penalty is rather simple. Economists assume that individuals weigh the expected costs and benefits when deciding to undertake any activity. Thus, rational individuals considering criminal activities would weigh the expected benefits against the expected cost of the criminal endeavor. The expected cost of any given crime is affected by the probability of being detected, the probability of being convicted given detection, and the expected penalty that results from a conviction. Since the death penalty provides a higher cost than alternative punishments, it is expected to generate a larger deterrent effect, ceteris paribus.
Go to the website and use two sources to justify whether you are for or against the death penalty.
I support the death penalty because putting a prisoner in a cell for life does nothing but use up taxpayer money to supports ,provide meals and other needs for the prisoner until they die in the prison. Also with the death penalty as an option for punishment for violent crime it works as a strong deterrent against commiting offences such as murder.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#D.Cost http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm#det
Poju Adeogba
Period 2
While I do believe that certain crimes deserve a more severe punishment than others, I am against the death penalty unless it's the worst possible crime committed. One in every 25 defendants sentenced to death is likely innocent, and the possibility of someone being killed for something they didn’t do doesn’t sit right with me. Also, the death penalty hasn’t decreased the amount of capital crimes that are committed, like murder, so it is not proving itself effective.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www.aclu.org/death-penalty/
Fatima Wahid
Period 2
I am in favor of the death penalty. This capital punishment not only punishes the criminal in the case, but also brings awareness to those around us. Many people speculate that the death penalty does nothing, for it give the criminal an easy way out. However this is quite false the death penalty is more like torture because the trial that is taken to establish whether someone is guilty is very lengthy. One moment they can be living in jail and the next second they can be told that they are on death road. As well as there is research that does state that there always seems to be a decline in extreme crimes once the death penalty is adopted by that state. To me it only seems fair that if you commit a heinous and take someone else's life in doing it that your life should be at stake as well. One thing one should take into consideration as well is that the death penalty isn't just given to anyone. There is lots of investigation put behind the case, that assures whoever convicts the criminal that the death penalty is just in their situation.
ReplyDeleteResources:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419074/death-penalty-just-and-merciful-matthew-schmitz
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010124241&source=Bookmark&u=j079907006&jsid=127e070237c62ac3362481a97060cfc2
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010124248&source=Bookmark&u=j079907006&jsid=f58caf729a336894e2a91fd045abcf59
Personally, I support the death penalty. Although some individuals may argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional or immoral, citizens' tax dollars are going towards feeding and providing other necessities to criminals. Others may also argue that life sentences without parole serve as the best punishment because these criminals are left to suffer in prison, burdened by the guilt of the crime they've committed. However, is there a guarantee that the criminals will even reflect on what they've done? Do they even feel the remorse that people expect them to feel? Or are they simply enjoying their television access, recreational time, and free food? While the families and friends of their victims are left, traumatized by their experiences, the criminals would simply be living the easy life in prison. The death penalty can serve as a way to bring justice to some families, and at the same time, it serves as an incentive for people to veer away from criminal activities that could possibly sentence them to death. Lastly, the death penalty isn't just given to the average individual, but to the sadistic humans willing to take another's life.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
Jackie Landoski
Pd.2
Like all choices made by human beings, whether or not to commit a crime is decided at one time or another: "the rate of crime is influenced by its costs." If America increases harsh consequences and their implementations, criminals will decide that committing crimes is not worth the risk, or potential cost. Death penalty for intentional murder is justified, as it follows "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," prevents murderers from committing the crime, or worse, again, and frees up jail cells for criminals who have committed lesser crimes and can be corrected quickly. Letting murderers sit in jail is a waste of tax payer resources and shows other potential criminals that it's not too bad stealing an innocent life. Taking a life of a murderer is not hypocritical as one might think, as taking a murderers life is justified because they are not innocent; the person the murderer killed was innocent and their family should be able to feel safe knowing that the killer is permanently gone. In addition, Chicago, Illinois has one of the highest crime rates, if not the highest, in the United States and there is a strong negative correlation between the number of criminals on death row in Chicago and number of crimes committed. In summary, I support the death penalty.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/death_penalty.html
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Resources.htm
Jackie Rosenthal, 4th period
I am against the death penalty because it is inconsistently applied to cases, therefore questioning the effectiveness of its use. It also has been racially biased in the past and may continue to be discriminatory. Therefore, the risks and problems of the death penalty outweigh any usefulness, making it not an economically efficient solution.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/dunham1.html
I am against the death penalty because I do not believe that other people should have the right to determine whether or not someone lives or dies. Of course, a murderer on death row exercised his/her power over someone else's right to live, and so it seems they should not be given mercy for their crimes and thus be put to death as well. The death penalty is to give citizens a sense of security, as they see perpetrators being put to an eternal rest and unable to commit any more acts of wrongdoing, but sometimes the alleged perpetrator is innocent. It isn't okay for innocent people to keep dying. The issues that are present with the death penalty make the "pros" of it seem minuscule, therefore making it an ineffective solution for crimes.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.abanet.org/irr/rec107.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
Dahlia Chandrahasan, 4th period
I am a fan for death penalty. Death Penalty was used since ancient times to punish people with a variety of offenses. The bible also advocate death for murder and other crimes such as kidnapping and stealing. For economic reason, the people who stays in prison for decades of years without anything to do. They spend our money and live for a long life!!! Here in the China, we have Death Penalty, but I believe this capital punishment should be issued in all states in US for those people who commit great crimes. Death Penalty should be issued because death is being feared, it gives Justice, it is a fact that there's no proof of an innocent being executed and there are some quotations from the bible that seem to respond this. Death Penalty is like "an eye for an eye". Death Penalty helps curtail future murderers and because of this we can save more lives. If Death Penalty exists, repeat murderers are eliminated and future murders are deterred. Just imagine it; we will live in a just society. If death Penalty wouldn't be issued now, then when? When there are more criminals lurking? It is said that every minute, there is a chance that an innocent man could get murdered. We must put a stop to it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/category/categories/resources/public-opinion
http://spectator.org/blog/62879/how-i-came-support-death-penalty
In my opinion, I am against death penalty because it is inhumane and it the worst violation of human rights. It costs more to resolve capital cases than non-capital cases. Imprisonment, in average, is less costly and on top of that, it is reversible. In a society where there is no such thing as perfection, there will be cases where innocent individuals getting convicted and executed, and that is irreversible and it leads to miscarriage of justice. Death penalty is being used more frequent on individuals that have low socioeconomic backgrounds and that's racially and ethnically minority, which creates some bias and discrimination regarding race and financial status.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/death_penalty.html
Lucky Marchelino, 4th Period
DeleteI am in favor of the death penalty. The Supreme Court and other justices know the weight and severness of the death penalty and therefore have tried their best to make sure that all states having a death penalty" provided a clear and objective standards under which the death penalty may be applied". Furthermore, "few innocent people are convicted of the death penalty". Even more so , the people who are affected by it have already committed capital offences.The US is already number one and far ahead in the percent of the population help in prison. The cost of the death penalty is high, but so is the cost of keeping thousands of people who have committed crimes and already served their time. The right education and support of people at a young age can help to lessen crime and the number of people put on death row. Rather than focus on whether it should or should not exist, i believe that we should go a step further and looks at why or how we can fix the problems before they start.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/death_penalty.html
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
I am against the death penalty. First of all, it is highly inhumane and immoral to decide the whether a person should live or not. It is hard to believe that the death penalty is actually justifiable and 'fair' among the entire population, for one who is placed under the capital punishment may turn out to be innocent. Aside from more moral reasons to why the death penalty shouldn't be a mandatory method of punishment, the capital punishment appears to be used disproportionately against the poor, who cannot afford expensive legal counsel, as well as against racial, ethnic and religious minorities. In other words, the death penalty appears to be mainly reserved for those with highly low-economic standards. Whether those who have enough money to escape that route have the chance to do so or not is not clear. In addition, there appears to be little to no protection of those who have serious mental disabilities and illnesses. To place the scythe of Death upon an individual who was not in control of his/her actions due to the 'abnormality' of their psychological development is not the right thing to do. There are many more factors that should be considered when it comes to the death penalty, and, unfortunately, many are ignored, leading towards inhumane actions that violate the basic human rights of many individuals.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aclu.org/issues/capital-punishment?redirect=death-penalty
http://crime.about.com/msub2.htm
Abilio Sanchez
6th Period
I am against the death penalty for many reasons. I do not think the death penalty is an efficient deterrent because I don't believe a person truly comprehends the magnitude of a death sentence when debating whether or not to commit a crime. The death penalty eliminates the possibility for the rehabilitation of a criminal. Additionally, I do not believe the state has the right to take away someone's life regardless of the crime that person has committed. The death penalty, almost exclusively used for criminals who have committed murder themselves, reinforces the eye for an eye policy so that this type of punishment resembles revenge rather than justice. The death penalty is inhumane, and frankly, outdated.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aclu.org/case-against-death-penalty?redirect=library/case_against_death.html
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm#det
Logan Felton
Period 2
I am against the death penalty because according to the christian faith, no one has the right to take away a life except God. Also, when you kill a person you are in a sense aiding the criminal. You are relieving the criminal of a life time worth of the suffering that they would be having in prison.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
http://www.abanet.org/irr/rec107.html
Irene Dennt, 2nd
The death penalty is an inhuman form of punishment that individuals should not be allowed carry out. The death penalty is old-fashioned punishment, and in society that promotes innovation and modernism, we should cease to condemn individuals to a death sentence to prove that our society is moving towards the future rather than dwindling in the past. As exhibited by many cases, individuals who are convicted are later proven innocent when people revisit cases with new technology. However, an innocent person condemned to a death sentence not only loses their life in an inhuman and unjustified manner, but the family of the individual is forced to live with the fact that their loved one was sentenced to death when they were in fact innocent.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/6364
http://www.sfexaminer.com/countys-cold-cases-start-to-thaw/
Ana Salim
4th period
Now to answer your question: No, I do not believe that the death penalty is an efficient and effective deterrent to murder. Those vile individuals that choose to eliminate all morality within their souls to stoop so low and take one's life without justifiable reason do not consider "an eye for an eye" at the time of their crime. Consequences do often limit one's desire to commit a crime, but in this case, I think that one who commits 1st degree murder is not thinking about his/her consequences. I am not in favor of the death penalty. When another death row inmate is taken from this Earth, I question: ok... now what? you happy? What has this society accomplished by killing a man that was already dead to society when he was found guilty? Our states would save a considerable amount of money by eliminating the death penalty as defense costs for death penalty trials in Kansas averaged about $400,000 per case, compared to $100,000 per case when the death penalty was not sought. (Kansas Judicial Council, 2014). Also in my opinion, if one is killed by the state, then they never earned the true punishment and consequences they deserved for the crime. They are getting the easy way out. Lastly, in high stakes cases, (and not) evidence can be misleading and often times hidden until after the verdict is given. For a case to be re-opened for an guilty individual is difficult, and if that man is now dead due to our legal system, quite frankly it is impossible. I see no pleasure or treasure in killing a man even if they have killed one themselves. This world is not beautiful or polite. Why do we have to succcumb to it ourselves instead of offering a more effective form of punishment?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/death_penalty.htmlhttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
We don’t rape to stop rapist , we don’t steal to stop theft, and we don’t murder to stop murderers. You don’t dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools; every time we use the tools of the things we condemn to enact an action we only give more merit to those practices we claim to hate. This leads to pockets of exception where instead of using sound logic we devolve to an unintelligible level of being where sometimes an action is okay and sometimes it isn’t all depending on who the actor is. I’d like to ask whats the difference between the government killing and a individual killing? Both are stupid needless acts of violence. Both achieved the exact same goal: the death of another person. So whats the difference of me as an individual killing someone at our school under the justification that they killed a bug? It’s an “eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth” right? They took a life so I should take a life too right because somehow that will solve the problem, right? Now substitute me out and place the government in my shoes does it make anymore sense than it did before? Or is it just as asinine, just as useless, just as belligerent? Murder is murder, no matter what religious text you use to back it up no matter how noble you present it, murder is murder. And Murder for murder is just as bad, just as inexcusable, and is an act of vengeance not justice. It doesn’t lessen the amount of murders or rapes, it just makes us just as guilty as those we execute. Also it’s worth mentioning to those more worried about their tax payer dollars than the life of another man; never forget in your worry about your money you seem to have forgotten how our overcrowded prisons are a direct result of our war on drugs (the incarceration of thousands of non-violent offenders), the school to prison pipeline, and racial class structures that prey on the poor and majoritively colored people robbing them of resources (such as: effective police, good schools, ect) that would actually prevent them from going to jail shrinking the prison population. Oh and don’t forget for-profit prisons that you’re so willing to pay for with your tax payer dollars.
ReplyDeleteSources:
Deletehttp://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/death_penalty.htmlhttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoKkasEyDOI&index=14&list=PLJ8cMiYb3G5cX8x8hoIcd8NhMin3hqxzf
http://www.sfexaminer.com/countys-cold-cases-start-to-thaw/
The death penalty is the most ineffective crime deterrent that exists today. Those who support it believe that it establishes a fear factor that prevents others from committing a crime of such high stature, but fact of the matter is that one who commits a first degree murder is one who doesn't care for their consequences. They suffer from a mentality that makes most of them believe that if the government is willing to go through such great lengths to punish them in such a manner, then they must be martyrs. They think of themselves as icons. It's easier to let them rot in prison realizing they aren't the heroes they think they are. Not only is it ineffective, but it's a biased system in any corner of the world in which it is implemented. In Iran, you are killed for your sexual orientation, in Saudi Arabia, you are killed for advertising any religion besides Islam, and in America, if you are any color besides white in most states, your chances of being executed double or triple. Each death penalty system is corrupt and biased. We live in a world where evidence can be misconstrued, or the truth can be swayed. So how can you put such trust into a system that can be corrupted by evidence,skin, or anything else that you can implement an irreversible action?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/death_penalty.htmlhttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
DeleteI am against the death penalty because it is was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court before for a reason. It was deemed unconstitutional because it is a cruel and inhumane punishment and is costly for the government to administer as well. The people who commit these crimes capable of capital punishment are also obviously not mentally stable and therefore unable to think rationally about the consequences of their actions as we do. There are also people who are convicted of crimes that they are actually innocent of. If these innocent people are convicted and sentenced to capital punishment but later on evidence is revealed that would pardon the so called criminal then the punishment inflicted upon the "criminal" would be irreversible seeing as how they death penalty would most likely already have been applied. I am against the death penalty because these people should not be let off the hook so easily, but rather should be sentenced to life in prison to think of their actions for as long as they live as well as the possibility of mistakes in the legal system that is so flawed.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aclu.org/case-against-death-penalty?redirect=library/case_against_death.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/6364
I am against the death penalty because it often displays its flaws through wrongful convictions. It is proven through some cases that those who are executed are actually innocent and are executed due to racial circumstances. The victims of the death penalty are often unable to afford great lawyers and attorneys to help prove their innocence. And this punishment is cruel and unusual because it relates back to slavery, branding, and other early day punishments. And in most cases, it is often a African American who is given the death penalty for killing someone. The individual is given less of a chance due to his or her's race and is in some cases automatically considered guilty. A person with a family can be killed for absolutely no cause or for simply defending themselves or others. The death penalty proves that it violates the equal protection constitutional guarantee by the statistics shown through race.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aclu.org/death-penalty/
http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/dunham1.html
Allen Watson
6th Period
Personally I am against the death penalty due to the fact there are many flaws that are associated with them. There is no credible evidence to back up the idea that the death penalty is veyr effective. In fact there is no evidence that the death penalty defers people from committing a crime than long term imprisonment. People see that, regardless of at the acts they commit, they could either die or allow themselves to rot in prison for the rest of their lives (which is basically the same thing in my eyes). States that have enforced the death penalty have shown the same amount of crime rates that other states without the death penalty have as well. Another reason I do not support the death penalty is due to the misjudgments. Many people are often killed from crimes they do not commit and I find that VERY unfair. It has been proven that there is 1 innocent person out of every 7 executed individuals. While it may not seem much, it is still a life that was wrongly lost. Often times race also plays a big factor in executions. Not many Caucasians are put on death row, but rather many Hispanics and African Americans. About 50% of those inmates currently on death row are African Americans and the next six scheduled executions are all African Americans. To me this feels as though minorities are held to a higher punishment solely because of their race and the statistical prejudices that plague them. The death penalty is not very fair, but in an unfair world, there is only so much you can do.
ReplyDeletehttp://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
http://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/death_penalty.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” A phrase dating all the way back to Hammurabi's Code. I'd like to think that we as humans have evolved and have refined our morals away from such hypocrisy. However, morals aside, there are other factual arguments as to why the death penalty hurts more than it helps.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main arguments in favor of the death penalty is the fear of death. They argue that the death penalty deters potential murders because the risk of getting caught would be too great, thus lowering homicide rates. This is pure speculation. In fact “scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime anymore than long prison sentences.”
So it doesn't lower crime rates, but it must be more cost efficient to kill them rather than pay to keep them in prison, right? That couldn't be further from the truth. “It costs far more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life. When one takes into account the cost of a jury trial and mandatory appeals process to try, convict and execute someone in a capital case, these costs can reach millions of dollars, which is more than what it costs to keep someone in prison.” If you aren't convinced that the death penalty is not only unethical/hypocritical, but also an economically stupid choice, let's take a look at what the death penalty has already done for us.
Not long ago, this issue on the death penalty came up when some failed executions came to light. So not only are we killing people, but we are doing so inefficiently and we apparently aren't properly able to end someone's life with 100% guarantee. As a result, the victim is left with irreversible results which could be considered torture, which is not allowed nor has any legal justification.
Lastly, as of last year, 144 men and women have been released from death row nationally. Those for the death penalty may say that there have been no cases found in which an innocent man has been executed. Found. There may not be any substantial evidence of innocence, but that doesn't mean they aren't innocent. Of the thousands that have been executed, and with 144 people being released from death row, it's inevitable that we have executed an innocent man by now. I may be speculating a little here, but if we just put these people in prison instead of on death row, there would be no cases of innocent executions. An unjustified prison sentence is reversible. Executions are not.
http://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/death_penalty.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtaVKVIoWyk
Alex Nguyen
Period 6
I am for the death penalty. I believe it serves justice to those who do wrong to the human society. In my opinion, death penalty should be given to people who take someone else's life for their own selfish reason. Every person deserves justice, and a person who takes someone else's life, does not deserve to be in this world either. Benefits of the death penalty would be that it prevents future murders.Some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higherrates if they did not use the death penalty. Also, by punishing the criminal, the law rewards this anger and thereby teaches law-abidingness; by so doing, it promotes respect for those things-such as human life-that the criminal has violated.
ReplyDeleteAshley Abraham
Period 6
http://cad.sagepub.com/content/26/4/503.short
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/arguments.PDF
In my opinion, I am in favor of the death penalty, because we can save innocent lives. Some crimes are more severe than others and capital punishment is the ultimate warning against all crimes. If the criminal knows that the justice system will not stop at putting him to death, then the system appears more draconian to him. I believe life is sacred, therefore, one who takes a life should have his own life taken away, too.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm#pro
Rifa Shah
4th pd
Tiffany Chan
ReplyDelete4th period
I am against the death penalty because I do not believe that it is right to kill someone because he/she has killed someone or has committed a great crime. Taking away someone's life for their actions is an inhumane way of "solving" a problem. There may also be a chance that the suspect could be innocent so he/she could be falsely accused and murdered for something they didn't do. Thus, taking away a suspect's life is equivalent to taking away someone's father, uncle, spouse, grandfather, etc.
www.aclu.org/case-against-death-penalty
www.deathpenalty.org/section.php?id=24
Whoops 6th period.
DeleteI do not believe in the death penalty because killing someone for killing someone is sending the wrong message out to the public. The death penalty is an another form of revenge, but in the end, killing the criminal won't bring the victim back to life. Moreover, the death penalty unknowingly brings out sympathy for the evil criminals because they will die. Therefore, the death penalty should not be incorporated in society.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.balancedpolitics.org/death_penalty.htm
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
Sarah Sam
6th period
I believe the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes and also to criminals that reject to reform themselves after given a second chance (if they commit 2 heinous crimes). So in essence, it should not be abolished. However, all criminals reserve the right to a "humane and cruel punishment".
ReplyDeletehttp://www.facts.com/cd/i00015.htm
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
Derrick S.
Period 2
http://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/death_penalty.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj.html
I am against the death penalty. In some cases, wrongful convictions can lead to the execution of innocent parties. Morover, the cost of death penalty cases far exceeds that of any other criminal cases in most instances, which counters the argument that killing criminals of haneous crimes is cheaper.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEric Chong- 2nd Period
ReplyDeleteI am against death penalty, because in my opinion.Just because one person has committed a severe crime or mistake does not and should not mean that they deserve death. We are all human, we are people and our greatest gift is to make mistakes. I also believe that there is no such individual who has the right on this earth that has done a single mistake disregarding the size of it to make a fair judgement to another individuals fate. In example students of any levels at school make choices some are good some are bad and based on this decisions the results of our test score defines our mistakes. Another example is when we choose to do things, like doing what our parents tell us to do, or do what our peers do, or even decide to follow rules or not, all can lead to our own mistakes and lead us to failure in life. All of these examples are a way of failing and doing MISTAKES/FAIL but we are not sentenced to death because of a single one them. So what is the difference between committing something worst than just failing a test if both are mistakes? Why do it? What is the exact valid meaning to it? No matter how much we sentence people to death it does not teach anyone to not do bad things, so why do we still do it? ... F.A.I.L. is not just a word it stands for "FIRST ATTEMPT IN LEARNING" that is why we do mistakes that is what makes us human. In conclusion just because someone "FAILED" in life does not mean one should have the right to sentence that individual to death. No one is perfect, but we should all help each other, teach each other, and decide to strive for it.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am for death penalty because there are a lot of people who go to jail and then end up getting out but don't regret what they did. They repeat the same thing over and over again. Them staying in jail doesn't do anything. If the person has a committed a crime or a murder, they should be put on a death penalty. I don't think it's right for a person to live life when they ended another person's life for no reason.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
http://www.truthinjustice.org/922death.htm
4th Period
I am against the death penalty because in my opinion, it is inhumane and sort of a "last resort" to punish people who have committed crimes that have mental illness. For example, in the article I read, the man was diagnosed with Dementia and instead of being admitted into a hospital, he is expected to be put on a death penalty soon this year. I believe that criminals with mental illnesses should receive help and treatment for the illness or disorder instead of being killed. Also, the idea of the death penalty is so circled around race, gender, and geography, and is carried out in such an unfair manner. The race or gender of a victim should not influence their sentence. For these reasons, the death penalty is a complete violation of human rights and the rights that people have fought for in America for centuries.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www.patweb.com/dpquiz/index.htm
Karishma Shah, period 2
Although some may believe that the death penalty is cruel and unpleasant, I think that it should be allowed under certain circumstances regarding the level of the crime. If the crime that is committed is intentional murder, a mass shooting, or terrorism, then that constitutes a major punishment and the death penalty can be seen as a fitting one. If the crime is robbery, threats against someone, sexual assault, or fraud, then the punishment should be years in prison. The death penalty should be allowed in the case of a suspect killing the life of an innocent civilian.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the existence of the death penalty is a caveat for potential criminals. A severe punishment can make potential criminals have second thoughts on doing a murderous crime. In Saudi Arabia, the crime rate is very low but the government takes their justice system very seriously. They have the death penalty in most cases of murder and sexual assault, but also have stern punishments on the account of robbery or anarchism. Their punishments have involved decapitation, cutting off hands, or stoning. Knowing these punishments are put in effect most of the time, criminal activity has been lowered at the thought of the death penalty in that country. In 2013, the number of crime cases reported by the Ministry of Justice was 22, which is far less than the United States’ estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurring nationwide in the same year.
http://www3.theatlantic.com/politics/crime/wilson.htm
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
Yousuf Sirajuddin, Period 2
Despite it being heavily looked down upon, I believe that there are some benefits to the death penalty. People who have loved ones who have gotten murdered would rest better knowing that the best was done in order to avenge their loved one's death. It is very comforting for the relatives of the victim to know the murderer will not harm anyone else. Although some may argue that death is too harsh of a punishment, I believe that it is an important step in maintaining the status quo in a city. Once a person has a habit of murdering, it is very unlikely that they will change. Change is something that does not come easily, and the prison system does not provide rehab for the imimates. Therefore, the only reasonable answer to punishment for a murderer would be death, which I believe is less worse than life imprisonment.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
http://www3.theatlantic.com/politics/crime/wilson.htm
Isabelle Tzeng; 6th
Ashlin J.
ReplyDelete2nd period
I oppose the death penalty for many reasons. Executing a noncriminal person is a corruption that can never be fixed again. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty, about 144 men and women have been released from death row worldwide. It costs much more to kill a criminal than to keep that one in prison for rest of their life. Lots of family members who lost their relative for execution think the death penalty will not solve their painful life. Lots of countries in West Europe, North America, and South America denied capital punishment in law. Possibly, the main factor in deciding if a criminal will get the given.
Scientific studies always failed to show that executions discourage people from doing crime anymore than a long term prison sentence. The quality of legal counsel and the jurisdiction where a crime is committed are more often the determining factors in a death penalty case than the facts of the crime itself. Even though passages of religious scriptures have been proved for the death penalty, most religious groups in U.S. consider executions as evil.The victims race and defendant's race in serious cases are the main reasons in deciding who is punished to die in this country. Each state holds the death penalty, and the jury can punish accused murderers to a life sentence without parole. The punishment is less expensive than death penalty for tax-payers and lets offenders out the streets.
http://deathpenalty.org/section.php?id=24
I'm in the against position of death penalty. People make mistakes occasionally. For say that if the criminal got executed but many years later the court found out he is not guilty at all, there is no remedy for that. So, if the inoocent got charged for the high level of severity crime, there is no way to make up this mistake and the loss to his family or friend is uncurable. The most important step to avoid this type of situation is encourage the handling group to do an enough number of evidence collection such as the DNA analysis to ensure the defendant is indeed the real culprit. Thus it won't put the innocent at risk.
ReplyDeletehttp://americamagazine.org/issue/100/ten-reasons-oppose-death-penalty
ZhiQi Jiang
2nd Period
I am against the death penalty, because there is not a good enough reason to take the life of someone, it in the bible that people shoud not kill. Every life is precious, no matter who it maybe be. If people would kill each other for the reason of revenge, the killing would not stop. For killing someone because they killed your loved one would cause their loved ones to seek revenge against you. There is also no evidence saying that the death penalty deters better than long term imprisonment. Also they cannot fix the punishment of the death penalty if wrongfuly accused. So in the end, there is no good reason for someone to take a life.
ReplyDeletehttp://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
http://greengarageblog.org/list-of-10-biggest-death-penalty-pros-and-cons
Shogan Tom
6th period
I agree with the death penalty because it is shown that what people fear the most is death, so by having the death penalty it will hopefully scare people into not killing someone.
ReplyDeletehttp://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
David Sander
4th period
I oppose the death penalty because by killing them they are suffering for a brief moment and is freed from the so called "prison". I believe that someone who has committed a great crime should suffer greatly and be give time to reflect on their actions. Many people believe that they kill for the greater good, so if they die doing it they might think they died for a great cause. By putting people in prison for long periods of time, they can reflect on their actions and suffer for a longer period of time than dying. I think this form of isolation is more painful than a sudden death.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/death_penalty.html
http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dp.html
Alex Ittoop
Period 6
In my honest opinion, the death penalty is certainly not an ideal solution in preventing and deterring crime within the United States. However, do we really have any other choice? The death penalty has been used for centuries as the penultimate form of punishment against those who have committed a seriously grave offence (i.e. Colonial New England, King Hammurabi), which serves as a testament to how humanity has considered how effective it was. In addition to that, James Q Wilson states in his article that "studies of individual behavior--supports the view that the rate of crime is influenced by its costs," meaning that those who do commit such malicious crimes should be fully aware of the consequences when they commit the crime. So, when judges are making the call to put some person on death row because of the crime that they have committed was so severe, the criminal clearly deserved it, since the death penalty is not something to be lightly thrown around.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, I agree that the system has its flaws, as there is no guarantee that any criminal justice system can be deemed perfect in anyone’s eyes. However, there is no definite solution to how any government can fix what many claim as unjust; not executing these felons would end up contributing to overcrowding within the United States’ already crowded and inefficient prison system. So, unless there is anyone who develops a proper form of punishment to deal with criminals who have committed serious offences against the citizenry of this nation or if they are willing to revamp the entire U.S. prison system using the tax money that the United States does not have, then the death penalty is probably here to stay.
http://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/death_penalty.html
http://www.ncjrs.org/
Andrew Auyeung
DeletePeriod 2
I personally am against the death penalty as I find this sort of "punishment" inhumane and hypocritical. I understand that majority of the people that is currently in prison deserves to be there, but death penalties basically allows them to die early without serving there time. In very few cases, some prisoners who had the death penalty had been wrongfully charged. The government kills prisoners because they (most likely) killed someone else which.
ReplyDeletehttp://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
Britney Stephen
4th Period
I support the death penalty to a certain extent, it depends on the crime. If an individual killed another i believe justice should be served and they should receive the death penalty. However, keeping a criminal in jail for a long period of time will not benefit their situation; it will only keep them stable using the taxes other citizens pay for.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-death-penalty-right
Jewel Zachariah
Period 6
I favor the death penalty because it is an important way to preserve law and order. It also costs less than if a person were to be held in prison their whole life. It also helps to ensure that the criminals will never commit heinous crimes again. However, opponents of the death penalty say that there are alternatives to the death penalty, such as solitary confinement. But they fail to understand that solitary confinement has many drawbacks as well. Researchers have found that prisoners in solitary confinement quickly become withdrawn, hypersensitive to sights and sounds, paranoid, and more prone to violence and hallucinations. This goes on to show that death penalty is the most effective way to punish someone for their crime.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solitary-confinement-cruel-ineffective-unusual/
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
Neha Shah
6th Period
I am against the death penalty because everyone deserves a second chance and the court should not be able to decide whether or not a person should survive only God can decide that and in the bible states : "Ezekiel 33:11: "As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live". A death penalty would also be the easy way out for the criminal because sitting in a cell for life is worse.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#D.Cost
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-death-penalty-right
Temi Oye
6th period
To answer the first question, no, the death penalty is not an efficient deterrent to murder. A criminal willing to murder someone will not care what the punishment is.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the second question, I am against the death penalty. Many others have posted about financial gains from killing, rather than keeping alive, many individuals. However, this is actually a misconception. The death penalty is more costly than prison for life. Yet, I do not feel cost should determine this issue. Rather, it is about principle - what is the most just?
I believe no human has the right to take the life of another human being. The death penalty is a violation of that and using the murderer's action to justify another action is hypocritical.
Beyond this, the death penalty is arguably unconstitutional and potentially even a human rights violation. Finally, it is critical to acknowledge that our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes happen. A person serving a life sentence can be released. Once a person is killed, nothing can be done. With "a demonstrated error rate of 1 innocent person for every 7 persons executed," innocent people are being killed. Although this could be an implementation error, rather than an error with the principle itself, it must be noted that judicial systems are not perfect. Therefore, I am against the death penalty.
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/death_penalty.htm
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
Prakul Suresh
6th Period
I am against the death penalty, because statistically speaking the racial proportions of victims targeted in death penalties are disproportionate. A 2011 study in North Carolina has shown that the chance of one receiving the death penalty was 3 times higher if the person murdered was of Caucasian background. Another reason why I am against the death penalty is because of the cost. A 2015 study has shown that the relative cost of prosecuting in a death penalty trial is one million dollars more than a case that excludes the death penalty. This means that money is being wasted. We could save a lot of money and use it in creating organizations to better educate society member and try to prevent them from getting in jail in the first place. I believe that lifetime in prison has the same effect , if not better than the death penalty, so paying more for something that may have the same value as another choice does not seem like the better option. In my opinion, the death penalty is not an efficient deterrent to murder, lifetime in prison is.
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Ayoub Nasraddine
http://www.ncadp.org/pages/cost
http://www.nclawreview.org/2011/06/race-and-death-sentencing-in-north-carolina-1980-2007/
I am for the death penalty, thus I believe that the death penalty serves as an efficient deterrent to murder. My reasoning being that "society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him" and that the death penalty does have a higher benefit than life without parole and other methods. I do understand that the death penalty has a higher price, but I feel that in order to keep whatever sanity this country has left, we need to show the citizens that reckless behavior is not acceptable. Therefore, I believe that the death penalty sets the example that the killing, raping, etc. of others in unacceptable, and thus shall encourage those who consider this outrageous action to reconsider before going on their killing spree.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/death_penalty.html
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
Amanda Miller
p. 6
I am against the death penalty. In my opinion, it is not a sufficient form of bringing an end to all criminal activity. It does, for sure, make a statement to other criminals about the degree of punishment they could face for their actions, but the death penalty hasn't seemed to exactly change criminal activities on a huge scale. Moreover, the death penalty doesn't always accurately display whether or not the prisoner is innocent or guilty. Many times, the prisoner is not given enough time to prove his/her innocence and gather more evidence simply because of the death penalty. Between 1973 and 2015, 148 innocent death-row prisoners in 26 different states were exonerated and released. This just goes to show that there are numerous individuals who are falsely proven guilty and put on the death row. Moreover, corruption and racism play a significant role in the death penalty process as money, status, race of the victim, and scene of crime are of high dependency regarding the death row.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aclu.org/case-against-death-penalty?redirect=library/case_against_death.html
https://www.aclu.org/issues/capital-punishment?redirect=death-penalty
Mahnoor Malik
Period 2
I am all for the death penalty. The death penalty is an important tool for preserving law and order, deters crime, and costs less than life imprisonment. Without capital punishment, it could be argued that the justice system makes no provision in response to murder, and thus gives no justice to the victim. The death penalty is the ultimate warning to would be criminals. The death penalty gives an example that crimes like murder, rape, etc, will not be tolerated. Therefore, I am all for the death penalty.
ReplyDeletehttp://deathpenalty.procon.org/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
Jonathan Ungar
4th Period
I am against the death penalty because I do not believe that it will help stop crime in any way. Most criminals don't take the time to research about the death penalty and what crimes get one onto the list therefore every person has the knowledge of their actions but not the consequences.The death penalty provides fear but not for every individual out there who is willing to commit these crimes, and it also puts the innocent at stake. There have been many who have been falsely accused and given the death penalty only to be exhaunerated after their death. The death penalty is described as an unfair and unjust system which is largely dependent on how much money the person has and the type of attorney they have hired to plead their case. No one should be given the ability to make a decision conceding another person's life because it is not our place to judge.
ReplyDeleteAleena Mathew
Period 6
https://www.aclu.org/case-against-death-penalty redirect=library/case
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj.html
Chelsea Godfrey
ReplyDelete2nd period
In my opinion, I feel as if the issue of whether or not the death penalty should be in existence is very controversial. On one hand, this form of capital punishment prevents criminals who are extremely dangerous to themselves and others from causing more harm. On the other hand, this form of punishment may be unfairly given and those who are charged with the death penalty may be able to be rehabilitated. In my opinion, I believe that the death penalty should not exist because the cost of obtaining a death penalty far outweighs the cost of lifetime imprisonment. Although the act of murder is horrendous and inexcusable, it does not make us any better than a murderer or a criminal if we execute him/her. Most criminals do not consider the consequences of their actions when committing a heinous crime. What is the job of a prison, if they cannot rehabilitate their occupants. Many people believe in "an eye for an eye," but that is not a statement I agree on.
Sources:
http://crime.about.com/od/death/i/dpissue1.html
http://www.swcollege.com/bef/pol
https://www.aclu.org/issues/capital-punishment?redirect=death-penaltyicy_debates/death_penalty.html
I am against the death penalty because the possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death. Mentally ill patients may be put to death and they can be innocent. I see death as a way out of them serving time in prison. It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. It doesn't offer anything killing one more person for their crimes they should serve their time and be locked away for what they have done. Also, it is an added cost to the government and taxpayers’ money. With the argument that life imprisonment with no parole is more expensive, opponents say that in general, the government spends more taxpayers’ money in handling cases of death row inmates. This is due to the length and complexity of trials, the number or defenders to be hired and the overall process. They contend that there are two trials the state will spend for. One is for the verdict and another for the sentencing, not including the number of appeals that will be submitted while keeping the convicted prisoner inside maximum security.
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/death_penalty.htm
http://greengarageblog.org/list-of-10-biggest-death-penalty-pros-and-cons
Karina Guerrero
Period:4th
I would totally agree with the death penalty. It helps prevent people from committing serious crimes such as murder. People who think about committing such horrendous acts would think about the consequences too and if the death penalty is present then they would most probably not go through with the crime. Whereas if there isn't a death penalty the criminal wouldn't think about death at all and it wouldn't create the fear of a severe consequence when committing a severe crime. The death penalty would protect law and order therefore the death penalty should be active.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
Srikar Valluripalli
Period 6
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am pro death penalty because although most people do not weigh the outcomes when committing a serious crime punishable by death, most have the logical sense to eventually know what they have cost themselves. I only support the death penalty when used correctly. In my opinion it is not fair that someone who can rape and murder a person can be put into prison where they are supported by taxes that are paid by the family of the victim. The death penalty is not just handed out, it is mostly given to those with previous records. The death penalty can be justified when used sparingly only for the most grievous and irreversible actions.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2005/12/the-economics-of-capital-punishment--posner.html
Aliya Noorani
2nd Period
Personally, I think death penalty is very much needed. It not only punish the criminal, it also makes the public more aware of the consequence of what they have done. Serving time in jail should be the time to rethink and for one to learn a lesson so they can start new. But there are some cases where people just never learn the rights and wrongs. Everyone has a line where others should not cross; it's the same with the society as a whole. If the crime is so absolutely unforgivable then why should the society's money and time be put into one's time in jail.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/projects/death_penalty_due_process_review_project.html
Sophia Lian
2nd period
I believe that the death penalty needs to exist. Not only does it save the world from another dangerous criminal but it also saves the government a lot of money. If used correctly, we can put a lot of dangerous criminals out and save the money used for the prison to something else like the national debt or to other programs. Also, according to James Q. Wilson, criminal in prison are more likely to be influenced even more to do more criminal activities if they get out of prison. I understand that death penalty has been used incorrectly due to the fact that it didn't account for the mentally ill. But our technology, today can identify if the criminal was mentally ill or not. So stating my point, I am pro death penalty.
ReplyDeletehttp://www3.theatlantic.com/politics/crime/wilson.htm
Nofil Haque
2nd period
Personally, I am for the death penalty. It is used to get rid of the most dangerous people in society. To them your life is nothing more than something in the way, and won't hesitate to take it. Do we really need these people coming back into society after their jail time, when most criminals act again. Prison has shown that it does not do well changing individuals because they are put into an environment with the same people. There is also the economic purpose of the death penalty. For one inmate, it costs taxpayers 50,000-60,000 dollars. Why would we harbor these criminals when we could spend that money preventing or helping with drug abuse or other reasons many people go to jail. These methods would be a better use of the taxpayers money. There are people living in poverty with under 20,000 dollars per year, why should a criminal who doesn't value human life deserve to live with a higher standard of living?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Becker_Chapter/Becker_Chapter.html
Sean Moss
2nd Period
Honestly, I am for the death penalty. I believe that people are given a chance to do the right thing but instead commit crimes such as murder. Committing a crime such as murder shows that you rarely value life if you value it at all. Why should your life be valued if you don't value life yourself. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done.
ReplyDeletehttp://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
Aaron Hudson
Period 6
I am for the death penalty because it makes the criminal think before doing the crime. It is important to look before you leap; see before you go. The death penalty can prevent many people from hurting others. If a person kill others for no reason, he/she should receive the same punishment. It can avoid the person to kill someone else and console the victim's family. Another way to think for this issue, ordinary people are afraid of death. If doing something will cost your life, and after thinking you will take risk to do it. Isn't it weird? There must be a serious reason. And many say that there are people did crime because they are disability or not well educated. I think it is the time for the court to step out and find out the reason. We need to improve the society to decrease the number of death penalty. Educate the non-educated, take care of the disabilities. Having a safe society is the reason that death penalty exist. If we are afraid of killing someone innocent, don't do it because there is no smoke without fire.
ReplyDelete4th
Yun JU Huang
https://www.aclu.org/issues/capital-punishment?redirect=death-penalty
DeleteI am for the death penalty because it gives justice to victims of murderers. Some criminal's offenses are so severe that they should not be taking up space in a jail using up our tax dollars to keep them there. In my opinion, having someone sit in jail for the rest of their life is cruel and unusual punishment because being confined in one place for so long is bound to cause severe mental disorders and make those criminals more hazardous to the other inmates. However, I do think there needs to be strict criteria that needs to be met in order to put someone on death row.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, the death penalty is a major public policy issue today that I do not feel will get resolved anytime soon.
http://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/death_penalty.html
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj.html
Kyle Newby
Period 4
I am completely against the death penalty for two simple reasons. It's inhumane and one of the most mindless, most pointless acts of punishment we have in the system yet. Not only is it defeating the purpose by simply executing the most severe issue at hand, murder, with the same act of taking one's life, but it also allows us to assume that just because the government does it, then it becomes alright. When someone takes another mans life, in what context does it seem fair or even logical to take their life as well, simply making their actions okay now. Shouldn't that mean we're breaking the law as well? Where exactly is that line drawn between an act of violence and an act of safety? There are countless more punishments that can actually compensate for such a cruel act such as murder that would make up for their taking of ones life. For example, manual labor and being sentenced to jail for life is a perfectly understandable punishment for such a crime, however, "safe murder" otherwise hidden by the term the "death penalty" is undoubtedly senseless and illogical.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.debate.org/opinions/should-capital-punishment-be-legal
http://www.balancedtopics.org/death_penalty.htm
Lameese Taha, 6th period
DeleteRaymond Loh 6th Period
ReplyDeleteI am against the death penalty because people in general do not consider the consequences of their actions; therefore the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Additionally, many forensic tests to conclude conviction are flawed as multiple false positives and negatives exist. By upholding the death penalty, many convicted people although possibly innocent would be ill- advised in being sentenced to death row.
http://justice.policy.net/jpreport/finrep.PDF
http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
Nicholas Tong
ReplyDelete6th Period
Both the death penalty and the sentencing of lifetime imprisonment is both costly. While they both have high costs, I believe the one with the higher cost is the death penalty. It is true that the death penalty is not as finacially straining as lifetime imprisonment, but the knowledge of placing someone before hades' gate is hold a huge moral cost. An eye for an eye is not the type of society that we live in. Holding someone's life in our hands in not a power that we should have, as it can cause mistakes and abusement.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/5-arguments-for-and-against-the-death-penalty/
Amira Nickerson
ReplyDelete3rd Period
While I understand and agree with most of the opposition to the death penalty, I don't believe it should stop being used. From an economic standpoint, the death penalty is a cheaper alternative to the costs of keeping a criminal incarcerated for the rest of their life. From a moral standpoint, a criminal who has committed a heinous crime has no possibility for rehabilitation or reintegration back into society if given the death penalty or a life sentence, so their lives are ruined either way. If there is irrefutable evidence of a terrible crime, the death penalty provides the ultimate justice.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ornellaspaper.htm
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thoughtsUS.html
Although some crimes may be severe enough to warrant the death penalty, it's simply not as effective as it is meant to be. There is no significant difference in the number of terrible crimes, such as murder, committed with or without the death penalty. In addition, there is often times a chance that a innocent person may be put to death. For these reasons. I'm against the death penalty.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www.aclu.org/death-penalty/
Christian Cortez
ReplyDelete2nd Period
In the case of this controversial topic, I support the use of the death penalty. The death penalty might be more costly than its alternatives, but it is rarely imposed. Since 1967, there has been an execution rate of 0.06%. This means, from an economic standpoint, the rare use of an expensive procedure is a low cost for government funds. The death penalty is a just punishment against violent crime. On another point, I also agree that the death penalty is more humane than life imprisonment. Personally, I'd rather die, than spend the rest of my life locked up.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
Deletehttp://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dp.html
DeleteI am against the death penalty because it costlier than life sentences and it provides a quick way out for many horrific crimes. I believe that in order for these criminals to suffer relative to their victim is to live their life in jail.
ReplyDeletehttp://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
Deletehttp://listverse.com/2013/06/01/5-arguments-for-and-against-the-death-penalty/
The post didn't go through last night
DeleteI amagainst the death penelty simply on the fact that the costs outweigh the benefits. Firstly, it is an easy out for people who commit dastardly deeds and simply cuts short their prison sentence. Secondly, it has been shown that the threat of a death penalty does nothing to drop crime rates or deter people from crimes (statistically speaking)so at that point it just becomes a waste of tax dollars and resources. Finally, there is a hypocritical nature to it=, because we are punishing someone for causing immense harm to someone else yet the same system that judged them is being allowed to wrong in the same fashion.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aclu.org/case-against-death-penalty?redirect=library/case_against_death.html
http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/5-arguments-for-and-against-the-death-penalty/
Bailee Mouton sixth period
I don’t support the death penalty. If society didn’t give a person life, society shouldn’t have the right to take life away from someone. In addition, the judicial process is hindered by biases such as racial profiling. Researchers have determined that more than two-thirds of capital cases are “seriously flawed.” Therefore, the question is not if the justice system is punishing innocent people- how many innocent people are we condemning to death? We cannot in good conscience continue inflicting such an irreversible punishment if we know the judicial process is far from infallible.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.counterpunch.org/dunham1.html
http://justice.policy.net/jpreport/finrep.PDF
I am against the death penalty. It is needless to kill someone whom has been condemned to a lifetime in miserable incarceration. The vast majority of those sent to death row already have lifetime sentences with no chance of parole. In fact, it is arguable that the death penalty is more of a kindness to spending the rest of your life in a cage eating slop and fearful of your surroundings every second. If the family really want justice, then don't give the criminal a quick way out. A quick clean death is such an easy way to go compared to the victim of the crime. Also, it is not economically efficient. Those sentence to a lifetime in a cage can also be used to work for a lifetime in that cage without pay. Free labor and workforce. No point in destroying that, it is a waste of a perfectly good opportunity.
ReplyDeletehttp://deathpenalty.org/section.php?id=24
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=uauje
no the death penalty is not always an effective detterent of death as if we look back to the teachings of freud and baudrillard , they say that the death drive or the urge to change animate molecules into inorganic molecules is inherent in human nature
ReplyDeleteno the death penalty is not always an effective detterent of death as if we look back to the teachings of freud and baudrillard , they say that the death drive or the urge to change animate molecules into inorganic molecules is inherent in human nature
ReplyDeleteno the death penalty is not always an effective detterent of death as if we look back to the teachings of freud and baudrillard , they say that the death drive or the urge to change animate molecules into inorganic molecules is inherent in human nature
ReplyDelete