Death Penalty Thesis (Informational)? | Yahoo Answers
"Upon turning on the computers, in order to find any letters or diaries, a document was listed as Death Penalty Thesis -- Mykhaylo Kofel," Nanni said in his affidavit. "Several diskettes were also found."
Death Penalty Thesis Statement - Best Template Collection
Regardless of one’s view of the death penalty in principle, these numbers raise questions about how the death penalty is applied in practice. The wide differences across states in the odds of carrying out a death sentence are potentially troubling from an standpoint. Indeed, has argued that if it were not for federalism and the strength of the Southern reaction to a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s, we might never have seen the resurgence of the death penalty in the post- world.
One of the most important arguments in favor of death penalty is the fact that it helps to deter capital crimes. This issue is debatable since there have been suggestions that application of death penalty has no serious effects on the rate of murders, for instance. Besides, opponents of death penalty claim that it is not possible to deter so-called crimes-of-passion committed in an emotionally affected state when a person is not capable of thinking about future punishment. However, there is evidence that application of capital punishment can indeed prevent crimes, even those that are committed by intimates.
In the year 2002, there were at least 1,526 people executed in 31 countries, and at least 3,248 people were sentenced to death in 67 countries. In addition, 81 percent of the executions took place in China, Iran, and the U.S.A. (Farrell). Those facts are just for 2002 and it seems that the number of people executed during this time was a large number. The death penalty is helping cut down the population of inmates on death row. There is no reason for them to believe that this is not helping. It seems that there is not a large number but if someone was to look at the statistics, it is actually a lot (Justice For All).Giving relief to friends and families for the murders on the their sibling or friend is done through the death penalty. The death penalty solves the overcrowding problem and this process is a humane action. Many people are losing their tax dollars to the government to pay for death row murderers, while these murderers should receive the death. These murderers do not deserve to live and have all of their expenses paid for committing those crimes. Now, why should anyone agree with not having the death penalty? They should not! The death penalty helps resolve many problems, such as the overcrowding problem. This process is humane and the persons that perform this task are not playing God. In the Bible, God has said that the people should uphold the law (Holy Bible). In the future, many problems could be resolved keeping the death penalty and not getting rid of it.One of the most outrageous instances supporting the above claim was the incident that happened in Alabama prison in 2001: Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, 25, an inmate who was serving life without parole for 3 murders was found guilty of killing a fellow inmate (Recidivism). The killer was finally sentenced to electrocution. However, if he had been sentenced to death right after the first murder, the other three could have been prevented. The life of an inmate who died at the hands of Peraita is no less valuable than his own. In fact, I strongly believe that it could have been more valuable: maybe that person has repented and was going to return to the society a re-born person? Maybe that person was not guilty of such a heinous crime as murder? Unfortunately, there is too much evidence that certain individuals tend to commit murder while others are less prone to it. Death penalty would then free society from the return of such individuals.In a research paper “Is Capital Punishment Morall Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs” by Cass R. Susstein and Adrian Vermeule, the authors suggest that death penalty is morally justified on the basis of distinction between acts and omissions. Most opponents of death penalty argue that it is barbaric for a government to take a human life since there is a difference between an act, such as killing a person, and omission, such as refraining from the act. But, researchers argue, by forbidding official penalty, government officials de facto allow numerous private killings that are left unpunished. However, a government that fails to maintain the welfare of the citizens by omitting death penalty from the criminal code will leave citizens unprotected and decrease their welfare “just as would a state that failed to enact simple environmental measures that could save a great many lives” (Sunstein, Vermeule 2005:41). Therefore, punishing the criminals is a necessary part of any state policy. The interests of victims or potential victims of murders cannot be overlooked in order to consider the interests of the criminals guilty of the most heinous crime - taking a person's life.Thus, Christian intolerance of death penalty appears doubtful. To negate death first of all would mean the moratorium on wars that take lives of more people than death penalty. The war casualties are often innocent peaceful people who just happened to be caught in the cross-fire, unlike recidivist criminals who end up on death row. Yet most Christian states prepare military doctrines and demonstrate to each other readiness to employ their military machine to kill people if necessary. Still others are practicing war if it suits their political goals. How significantly will then abolition of death penalty forward the goal of living a Christian life?The death penalty is the punishment of execution, carried out legally against an individual convicted of a capital crime. Those who support the death penalty might argue that it is just, and deters further murders, while others against it may argue that it is inhumane and it doesn’t solve any core problems in that person’s life. However, I believe that the death penalty can be substituted by a sentence to life in prison. According to the N.C. Department of Justice, the death penalty actually does not influence murderers to think twice before killing, in fact it does the opposite (Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crimes, 2015). As observed, states in the United States that don't use the death penalty have a lower murder rate that that of the states that do (Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crimes, 2015). For example, there was a forty six percent lower rate of murder in non death penalty states than in death penalty states ("Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crimes.", 2015). When the United States is compared to countries that do not use the death penalty, such as Canada or nations in Europe, it also has a higher homicide rate as well. In, reality, only a small percentage of murderers are executed, meanwhile there are worse offenders in prison such as abductors, sex offenders, buglars, etc., only because they have few resources to defend themselves.
Generally, homicides are committed in moments of anger or unprocessed thinking. Criminals are commonly severe drug and alcohol users, abusers or impulsive individuals. In addition, homicides are usually committed in the heat of anger or deep emotion while either under the influence of substances or mentally ill (Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crimes, 2015). In result of this we should try to help these people instead of ending their lives. Supporters of the death penalty believe when someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed and that the only way to restore the justice is by executing ... The restoration of the death penalty for serious crimes is an issue of debate in the UK because of the recent rise in violent crime. The causes, effects and solutions to the problems of violent crime throw up a number of complex issues which are further complicated by the way that crime is reported. Newspapers often sensationalise crime in order to increase circulation and this makes objective discussion more difficult. This essay will examine this topic firstly by considering the arguments put forward by those in favour of the death penalty and then by looking at the arguments opposed to the idea.