PlanetPapers.com RSS Feed

Life, Liberty & The Pursuit of Happiness --- But Not Quite...

2004-09-23T23:59:23-04:00

In simply reaching over for the remote control and turning on your television, you are opening your mind to numerous facts and opinions regarding to current or historical events that just might influence you to think. For instance, we have all seen the anti-drug commercials directed at parents to respond to drug problems with their children. There are various ways that a statement like the one being made by those commercials can influence just about anybody. Whether or not you or anyone else is influenced in a large way is irrelevant. The point is, media does have an impact. Now, I am going to be blatent with you. In the next following few paragraphs, I am going to present a number of reasons, facts, opinions and examples to attack some certains opinions while supporting my own. I hope to present enough evidence to your attention that supports my belief to persuade you to share my opinion. In the United States of America, you as a citizen are given natural rights that supposedly can never be revoked. Thomas Paine explained it very well in 1791 in this quotation, "Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness." And even more articulately explained in the Declaration of Independence here in this quotation, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." As you can see, it is clearly stated in the document that defined freedom for Americans, that these rights (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) are given to every man, woman and child from someone greater than mankind, or as this documents referrs to it, The Creator. So I ask you, who are you or any other human being to take the life, the natural right handed down from God himself, who are you to take this away from your brother or your sister, your fellow human being? Who are you to have command and control over who lives and who dies? Who are you to play God? They call it punishment

Corporal punishment is not a valid method of punishment

2002-09-01T14:00:00-04:00

Corporal punishment is not a valid method of punishment Most parents have generally strived to find many ways to cope with their children so that they are under good discipline. Accordingly, one of the methods is corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is the way to make children physically suffer by means of hitting or spanking them because they misbehave. Nevertheless, corporal punishment is not a valid method of punishment. There are three main reasons to argue against corporal punishment: physical and psychological harm, negative behaviour in the future and other better alternatives, which are highlighted below. The first significant reason of physical penalty being unreasonable method is physical and psychological harm. It has been proved that corporal punishment is a direct way affecting on a healthy hazard for children. For instance, in modern living, many parents likely have considerable pressure and stress to earn money; therefore, they may come back to their home in a bad mood. Consequently, children possibly become poor victims as their parents probably use excessively physical punishment without conscience, which are physical and psychological harm for their children. Because of suffering from mental cruelty, some children are intimidated by parents using physical penalty; as a consequence, when they have problems, they fear to consult with their parents to find solutions. Accordingly, children may make a decision in wrong ways such as pregnancy, coming down with AIDS and seriously addictive drugs, which are too late to solve problems together. It is no doubt that employing corporal punishment likely result in physical and psychological harm for children. Another reason to prohibit using physical punishment is negative behaviour in the future. It might be argued that parents chastise their children by means of corporal punishment conceivably making massive changes in their children’s personality in the future. As a result, these children likely grow up to be aggressive and abusive towards others. Some children may have reactionary behaviour when parents penalise in their body. For example, their children want them to study, but they do in the opposite ways such as truant, quarrel and goldbrick. Consequently, they may courage without discipline instead of a man of discipline in the future. In addition, employing physical punishment leads to the likelihood of violent behaviour when they are children until being adults. It is obviously seen that the negative behaviour of children may be the end result of using corporal punishment. Finally, there are other much better alternatives

Crime and Punishment

2002-06-05T14:00:00-04:00

In our society's criminal justice system, justice equals punishment. You do the crime, and you do the time. Once you have done the time, you have paid your debt to society and justice has been done. Because our society defines justice in this manner, the victims of crimes often seek the most severe possible punishment for their offenders. Society tells them this will bring justice, but it often leaves them feeling empty and unsatisfied after getting what they wanted. Punishment does not address the other important needs of victims. It cannot restore their losses, answer their questions, relieve their fears, and help them make sense of their tragedy or heal their wounds. Regardless of their particular view, most people agree that crime and violence are blowing up out of control in the streets of our towns and cities. Most also agree that what we are doing about it is not working. We are fearful and we have good reason. We know our criminal justice system is broken and we don't know how to fix it. Crime always goes down when the economy is good. That is because there is more money for police, but more importantly because there are less people who are desperate for money, or could not make money in a legal way. One of the dominant principles of justice is the principle of proportionality . The punishment should always be proportional to the crime. That makes it needed to describe a range for the harshness of crimes. It allows an evaluation of several crimes between each other, and provides a quick suggestion of what the punishment should be in a perfect, fair, and real world. A crime is an action considered to be wrong and punishable by the law. A sin is an act of breaking the rules which goes against the will of God. People do wrong for a variety of reasons. Most people will commit small crimes and if not caught and punished the gains become a routine and tradition. Some of the reasons for committing crimes are social pressure, personal problems, greed and other circumstances. Social pressures are people who need to have lots of wealth so therefore they commit crime. Personal problems cause a difficult life which can lead to a life of crime as payback, an expression of anger or as a method of escape. Greed is someone wanting possessions that others

Proposition 184

2002-05-10T14:00:00-04:00

Cruel and Unusual Punishment is a fundamental right given to us by the United States (U.S.) Constitution. The 8th amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” Last year in California voters approved a controversial ballot initiative. Proposition 184, also known as the three strikes and you're out law, was passed on November 9, 1994. Under this new legislation repeat offenders, upon committing their third felony offense, will be sentenced to a mandatory twenty-five years to life in prison (California p. 667). California law states that (2) (A) If a defendant has two or more prior felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d) that have been pled and proved, the term for the current felony conviction shall be an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the indeterminate sentence calculated as the greater of: (i) Three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction subsequent to the two or more prior felony convictions. (ii) Imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years. The initiative passed with 76% of the voters in favor of it. The State Senate soon after voted the bill into law, with only seven members voting against it. The three strikes initiative stemmed from the killing of Polly Klass by Richard Allen Davis, a convicted felon. The killing outraged the entire state but what enraged people even more was that Davis had been in and out of prison his whole life and was still free to kill again. Soon people began calling for laws that would put repeat violent offenders behind bars for life. The premise of the new laws became an easy issue for politicians to back. To oppose such legislation seemed to be political suicide, so most politicians backed the initiative. Although many civil liberties groups opposed such mandatory sentencing measures there was little they could in the face of tremendous voter approval. Many voters did not realize that this bill could put potentially incarcerate people for ludicrous amounts after the commission of a minor offense. Even more voters did not realize the cost of implementing such a bill. Now that this new legislation has been in effect for a year and the tremendous negative affects it have become obvious we must repeal it. One of the issues that must be considered when imposing mandatory sentencing is the

Capital Punishment

2002-03-15T13:00:00-04:00

There has been much controversy over capital punishment over the years. Few people in the United States see capital punishment as being wrong. It is said that Canada is way too easy on their criminals because they do not punish the convicts by the death penalty. Canada says that the United States is way to strict on their criminals because they execute their convicts by the death penalty. Should murderers be murdered for their crimes or should they spend the rest of their lives perishing in prison, that question may soon some day be correctly answered but for now it is strictly your own belief, possibly this essay may change your mind if you are for the death penalty. Most Canadians believe that Canada should never reinstate the death penalty. The United States uses the death penalty as a punishment for the more sever criminals such as murderers and rapists, most of their convicts are guilty and on a rare occasion one innocent person is put to death by capital punishment. The States say this only happens on a rare occasion, that rare occasion should never happen. In some cases in the United States and also in Canada the wrong people are accused of crimes that they did not commit. Since the 1900’s, in the United Sates, there have been at least four cases where an innocent person is executed. Four innocent people are executed each year for a mistake made by the State using capital punishment. In Mississippi, 1990, Sabrina Butler was sentenced to death for killing her baby boy. In 1992, a retrial found she was not guilty. In this case Sabrina was able to escape her execution. Another case involving the death penalty took place in 1992; Rodger Keith Coleman was executed in Virginia, even though all evidence pointed to another person as the murderer. The real murderer got away with this crime while an innocent man had to die for a crime he did not commit. In Canada, if we had the death penalty many innocent people here too, would face the death penalty for a crime they did not commit. If Canada had the death penalty an inmate by the name of Steven Truscott would have been put to death for a crime he did not commit. Steven was sentenced to be hung in 1959 (when Canada still had the death penalty), at the young age

Death Penalty - Persuasive Essay

2001-11-19T13:00:00-05:00

When turning on the television, radio, or simply opening the local newspaper, one is bombarded with news of arrests, murders, homicides, and other such tragedies. There are many things that I don’t agree with in today’s society but, out of all the wrongdoing that takes place, I believe murder including the death penalty is the worst of them. I am strongly against the death penalty because it violates God’s rules, costs the tax payers too much money, the possible “wrongly accused,” and it is cruel and unusual punishment. How often do these concepts creep into the public’s mind when it hears of our ‘fair, trusty’ government taking away someone’s breathing rights? I do not support having the death penalty because it violates religious beliefs. Many religions, such as my own, Catholicism, follow the rules that God sent to use through the Ten Commandments. One of the most important of those ten states, “Thou shall not kill.” If you are executing an individual, that clearly violates this commandment. Murdering any person, no matter what the individual has been convicted of, is a mortal sin. Therefore, God will punish anyone who aids in executing people. I believe that religious beliefs, such as the Ten Commandments, are the corner stone for our law system. Executing someone should not be made an exception to God’s rule. My next reason against the death penalty is that taxpayers waste too much of their money with the death penalty. The average death penalty case is appealed three times. This means that the taxpayers must pay for the same trial to be heard three times. This is a very expensive practice. Also, the average convicted murder spends 12 years on death row. If supporters of the death penalty are positive enough to kill the person for committing the crime, shouldn’t the supporters be confident enough to execute them in a timely manner? Why spend the taxpayer’s money keeping these inmates in jail for so long? Taxpayer’s money should go to better society, not to accommodate the prisoners that are going to end up dead. There’s always the chance of the innocent being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A handful of evidence from a strong lawyer could sentence someone to life in prison, and even the death penalty. One could be spending and ending his life in captivity for simply walking down the wrong street on the wrong

Death Penalty

2001-10-21T14:00:00-04:00

The death penalty is the worst sentence someone can receive in the United States. It takes a violent crime to be given the sentence. The question is does anyone deserve the Death Penalty? Should it be used in modern day? Does it save the taxpayers money to execute someone? Why are some people against it? Does anyone ever deserve the death penalty? I think in some cases it should happen. I believe that if someone knowingly takes another persons life, he should be killed also. Even the bibles says that “Whoever strikes a man a mortal blow must be put to death.” Almost every culture throughout history has used the death penalty as a necessary tool for maintaining order. The only change throughout time has been what was deemed worth giving the penalty. Recently though all countries in Western Europe have abolished the death penalty. Now to a lot of people, the death penalty is one of the things that people look down at us for. The death penalty is used in many states throughout the U.S. but not in Wisconsin. However the death penalty should be used today in extreme circumstances. Some of the ways people have been executed have changed but people still die a somewhat quick death. The electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, and firing squad are the methods used presently in the U.S. In 2001, 49 people have been put to death all by lethal injection. Could the use of lethal injection and other forms of execution be used to help save taxpayers money? Some people say that more people should be put to death to save taxpayers money. But it is actually cheaper to keep someone in a maximum security prison for life than to give someone the death penalty. To execute and keep someone on death row it cost 3x as much because of the cost of appeals and holding them. So if someone was for the death penalty just to save money then they should be against it. People that are against the death penalty say it is cruel and unusual punishment. They claim that giving someone the death penalty is killing two people not one. Others say that innocent people might be put to death. While others say that racism makes blacks more likely to be put to death than whites. Studies show that this is true. What I think about the death penalty is that

The Alternative for Death Penalty

2001-06-17T14:00:00-04:00

Mead Shumway of Nebraska, was convicted of the first degree murder of his employer’s wife on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to death by jury. His last words before his execution were: “I am an innocent man. May God forgive everyone who said anything against me.” The next year, the victim’s husband confessed on his deathbed that he [the husband] had murdered his [own] wife (Radelet, Bedau, Putnam 347). There are an uncertain numerous amount of incidents similar to the one depicted above, that have repeatedly occurred throughout the course of history. Two highly distinguishable figures in the area of capital punishment in the United States, Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet, discovered in 1992, at least 140 cases, since 1990, in which innocent persons were sentenced to death (Hook and Kahn 92). In Illinois alone, 12 death row inmates have been cleared and freed since 1987 (Execution Reconsidered). The most conclusive evidence in support of this “comes from the surprisingly large numbers of people whose convictions have been overturned and who have been freed from death” (Bedau 345). One out of every seven people sentenced to death row are innocent (Civiletti). That’s nearly 15%. The numbers are disturbing. Innocent people are becoming victims of the United States judicial system by its overlooked imperfections. A former president of the American Bar Association (ABA), John J. Curtin Jr., said it best when he told a congressional committee that “Whatever you think about the death penalty, a system that will take life must first give justice. Execute justice, not people.” Though some of the innocent death row inmates have managed to escape their execution, there are numerous others who are unable to overturn their sentence through appeals. Many cases of innocence go unheard and result in the unfortunate fatality of an innocent bystander. When the death penalty in 1972 was ruled unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia, the Justices expected that the “adoption of narrowly crafted sentencing procedures would protect against innocent persons being sentenced to death”. But the chances that innocent persons have been or will be executed remain astoundingly high (Bedua 344). The United States justice system was formed on the premise that it should protect society’s general well being from any harm. Processes and procedures have been formed and created in order to ensure that everyone receives fair treatment, but the system has flaws that has let criminals back out on the streets

Capitol Punishment Essay

2001-06-09T14:00:00-04:00

An often-heated debate is that of capitol punishment. This is tricky subject though since so many people have troubles deciding for themselves where to draw the line with their morals. Some people say that killing in any form is absolutely wrong. Some people agree that killing is wrong, however, if one person kills another it is what they deserve. Both views are quite respectable. The Old Testament does in fact say “an eye for an eye.” Thus, the punishment should fit the crime. If a person sees fit to take another person’s life away from them, theirs should also be revoked. People that act and kill like animals should be treaded the same way, and put to sleep like dogs that are vicious. The death penalty does not apply to people. People have hearts and souls and emotion. This penalty only applies to heartless, savage animals. A quote from a famous song is “a boy who kills has no heart, a boy who kills can not love…” Thus, anyone who has neither heart nor the capability of love should be put to death because they are no use to society. Also, this is only a punishment for those who have murdered. These convicts, though the do not deserve it, are killed in the most humane way possible. They are killed by lethal injection. In the past ten years nearly five hundred men have been executed in the United States. All these were punishment for murder. The American policy on executions is far more civilized that some other countries, in which death is the punishment for drunk driving or use of illegal drugs. Firing squads, gas chambers, and hangings are pretty much never used any more, however electrocution is still used solely in two states. Those two states do not even give the option of lethal injection. Families often call for the death penalty because their sibling/child had no right to die. Since this person took their life, the family should have the right to lawfully take the murder’s life. However, life in prison is not enough, because they have an opportunity to leave on parole, and the thought of these murderous monsters being released into society again horrifies these families, thus they call for execution. On the other side of the spectrum, killing is immoral and wrong in every way shape or form. How does your point get across not to kill if

Reasons for Abolishing the Death Penalty

2001-05-06T14:00:00-04:00

There are many things that I don’t agree with in today’s society, but out of all the wrong doings that take place, I believe the death penalty is the worst of them all. I am strongly against the death penalty because it violates God’s rules, costs the tax payers too much money, prisoners could be wrongly convicted, and it is cruel and unusual punishment. The first reason why I do not support having the death penalty is that it violates religious beliefs. Many religions, such as my own, Catholicism, follow the rules that God sent to us through the Ten Commandments. One of the most important of those then states, “Thou shall not kill.” If you are executing an individual, that clearly violates this commandment. Murdering any person, no matter what the individual has been convicted of, is a mortal sin. Therefore, anyone who aids in executing people will be punished by God. I believe that religious beliefs, such as the Ten Commandments, are the corner stone for our law system. Executing someone shouldn’t be made an exception to the God’s rule. My next reason against the death penalty is that the tax payers waste too much of their money with the death penalty in place. The average death penalty case is appealed three times. This means that the tax payers must pay for the same trial to be heard three times. This is a very expensive practice. Also, the average convicted murderer spends 12 years on death row. If supporters of the death penalty are positive enough to kill the person for committing the crime, shouldn’t the supportes be confident enough to execute them in a timely manner? Why spend the tax payer’s money keeping these inmates in jail for so long? Tax payer’s money should go to better society, not to accommodate the prisoners that are going to end up executed. Another major reason for opposing the death penalty is, what if the prisoner was wrongly convicted. Throughout the history of the death penalty, there was numerous cases in which it is determined that the person executed did not commit the crime. New evidence maybe found years after the individual has been put to death. There is no way to say sorry and get that person’s life back. Also, the person accused maybe to poor to hire an adequate lawyer. The court appointed attorneys are often too over-worked and inexperienced to

Capital Disgrace

2001-04-11T14:00:00-04:00

How often have we heard the statement “Two wrongs don’t make a right”? Yet, is this saying ever really applied to our lives? When do we ever turn the other cheek? As far as history is concerned, the human race has never felt the sting of a hand consecutively on both sides. Evidence to this can be found anywhere. Soldiers kill the enemy to win the war. Athletes become violent in order to obtain a trophy. And, in the judicial system, the ultimate crime of murder is dealt with the ultimate punishment of death. Yet, it poses the question does the end really justify the means? Can society’s practice of the death penalty be considered a moral disgrace? Justice is not without faults. Canadians Guy Paul Morin and David Milgaard were both wrongfully accused of murder. Both men spent many years serving out a penalty which should have never been bestowed upon them. Although, if the death penalty was common practice in Canada, these innocent victims may have been executed. They may have been killed. Murdered. All because of a guilty verdict and society’s desire to extinguish the flame of violence. The desire to have revenge. Yet, does the elimination of an offender bring back their victims or heal the wounds of the families? Should we consent to causing pain for another family by killing their child? If the offender was your child, would you want to watch them die? Of course, there is always the argument that the threat of death acts as a deterrent to threatening offenders. However, the claim that this act really does deter violent crime is inconclusive, not proven, and extremely difficult to disprove. For every set of statistics saying that it lowers the amount of violent crime, there is another to say it doesn’t and another that states it does both. Using such an ambiguous argument to support a controversial act is not only unacceptable, but it is irresponsible. If there is any validity to this argument, it is negated by the actual amount of time an offender spends on death row. Endless appeals, delays, technicalities, and retrials keep those condemned to death waiting for execution for years on end. If the majority of death row residents live to an old age anyway, why would anyone be afraid of capital punishment? It would be just as easy to sentence offenders to life of captivity and work in a

Capital Punishment: Fair or Unfair?

2001-04-10T14:00:00-04:00

The most severe form of punishment of all legal sentences is that of death. This is referred to as the death penalty, or “capital punishment”; this is the most severe form of corporal punishment, requiring law enforcement officers to actually kill the offender. It has been banned in numerous countries, in the United States, however an earlier move to eliminate capital punishment has now been reversed and more and more states are resorting to capital punishment for such serious offenses namely murder. “Lex talionis”, mentioned by the Bible encourages “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” mentality, and people have been using it regularly for centuries. We use it in reference to burglary, adultery, and various other situations, although, some people enforce it on a different level, some people use it in reference to death. An individual may steal from those who have stolen from him/her, or an individual wrongs those who have wronged him/her, but should an individual have the right to kill to seek retaliation? Four issues are on the hot topic in the United States, stirring up America’s feelings towards this issue. There is controversy debating capital punishment today and whether or not it works, or if it is morally right. We have a certain privilege in our own lives, but should the lives of others belong to us as well. Do we have the right to decide on the lives of others, of people we may not even know? If we find someone guilty of murder, we sentence him to death. This makes us murders ourselves, but is there possibility in justifying these acts? Those who assist in the death penalty are they not partners in crime? Is the death penalty a cruel and unusual punishment or is it now just a necessary tool in the war of crime? With today’s increase in crime and violence in our society, the death penalty effects every American, whether interested or not, and has existed for quite some time now. The use of the death penalty has actually declined throughout the industrial Western World since the 19th century. In 1972, a movement in America to have the death penalty declared unconstitutional arose, during the landmark case of Furman vs. Georgia, declaring the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment, nonetheless, a Supreme Court decision in 1975, Gregg vs. Georgia, stated capital punishment did not violate the eighth Amendment

Capital Punishment and Torture: Unconstitutional or Junstice?

2001-02-10T13:00:00-05:00

Capital punishment and torture are often looked down on in today’s societies because they are viewed as cruel and unconstitutional, but perhaps they would help in more ways then we would like to admit. They can be beneficial in many ways such as encouragement to be truthful, encouragement to live by the laws, and as a source of punishment. Capital punishment and torture are thought to be too painful, and the person doing the punishment is also committing a crime. Many people agree with capital punishment and torturing. Capital punishment can be used as a threat, if broken, it will be a promise. Also knowing that there is the possibility of a death sentence gives people the incentive not to commit a crime.Torture is also a very helpful method of punishment. This works in many countries such as Singapore. In Singapore, many people are caned because of doing things that we may just get a warning for doing. Do you actually see the same person committing a crime twice? No, because everyone in Singapore is sure they will be caned if the crime is committed again. “It is generally assumed that torture is impermissible, a throwback to a more brutal age” (Levin 92). Capital punishment is said to be unconstitutional because people are not the one’s to make the choice of life or death; God is. Many people say that torture takes mankind back in civility when people need to be growing intellectually. Perhaps it does set us back to the middle age when people savagely cut off people’s hands for steeling and tongues for lying. Today’s society needs to concentrate on developing new ways to get along and live in peace with one another. Everyone knows that in today’s society peace in greatly needed . If a terrorist was to have an atomic bomb in Manhattan Island that is set to detonate at noon on July 4th unless his requests are met, would you resort to torture? What if he was caught at 10am on the day the bomb will detonate? Since he is caught he prefers death because he has failed, but death will not tell where the bomb is located. Would it be fair to let over a million people die because of one rotten apple out of a bushel? If he were tortured into telling where the bomb is placed, then perhaps all of the innocent people

Capital Punishment - Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right

2001-01-01T13:00:00-05:00

We teach the children only the highest of our ideals, the most virtuous of our values. An integral part of our “code of chivalry” is Immanuel Kant’s Golden Rule: Do as you would be done by. It is taught as a rule to be followed not only in school, but one to live by. Children never fail to imitate the behavior of their elders. This is a beckoning to us, the people of the village who will raise the child, to illustrate our words, to show that the Golden Rule isn’t just an empty cliché. Such crimes as murder render life cheap and people expendable. These atrocities are not to be tolerated. And a crime is only as severe as the punishment that follows, right? Ancient Babylon, in 18th century BC, had its version of our rule. “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” stated Hammurabi’s code. “Those who take the sword shall perish by the sword,” agrees the Bible. A recent study concluded that every execution of a murder deters eighteen murders on average. Raising the number of death sentences from 39% of cases tried to 40%, an increase of only 1%, would prevent one hundred five murders. One hundred five lives saved. Executing criminals renders them unable to commit more crime. If they’re dead, what more harm can they do? There are two types of punishment: lex talonis and lex salica. Lex talonis involves that “eye for an eye” principal, while lex salica involves repairing damage by payment. In some cases, lex salica acceptable, but not in murder cases. One cannot expect to buy the forgiveness of the victim’s family. This puts a price on the life of the victim and does not take into account the family’s need for retribution. If someone committed the capital crime, if he brutally murdered your mother or child, would you not want to know that he received the capital punishment, paid the full price? Would you not want to be sure that what he did to your family he’d never be able to do again? I would. Not only is it a matter of the family’s need for reprisal, but also society’s administering of justice. Imposing the death penalty forces the murderer to take responsibility for his actions. Punishment should equal harm done. Did the murdered not have a right to life? One of our most fundamental doctrines in this country says

Death Penalty

2000-12-16T13:00:00-05:00

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).

Capital Punishment is Murder

2000-12-03T13:00:00-05:00

All throughout the media, one hears of murders and homicides. It is a crime to kill someone, but the government "murders" people all the time without thinking twice. There is a risk when pulling the trigger that this horrible fate will happen. If it is not right to kill someone, why does the government kill people all the time? In The Bible, there is a statement that says "Thou shalt not kill," and yet the government believes it can punish for what it already does. It is a crime within a crime and the government should "Practice what they preach." This has been going on for so long that most nations have created a numbness to death. One may believe he is a law abiding citizen and follows the law to every word. This same innocent idividual could very well be put to death by the gas chamber. People are framed for crimes every day and noone notices. Naturally, people in court or in prison will go on and on about their innocence when they know well that they did it. This causes the innocent people's claims of innocence to be discarded. One may then spend half of his life in prison or be put to death. No normal people ever take the time to think that they may be next. If the death sentence was discarded, a few lives could be saved. Technology is advancing everyday and with DNA samples and other high-tech equipment, people could be proven innocent. Most people believe that the "bad guy" kills illegally and the "good guy", or the gas chamber, kills legally. Children in some neighborhoods are exposed to death and murder everyday. They think nothing of it after a while. The children grow up into gun-bearing citizens with the idea that killing the "bad guy" makes him the "good guy". This is often known as "taking the law into his own hands." So, if the government can kill legally, why can't a teenager take revenge for the death of his father? What makes the government so righteous that it kills legally, not including The Ten Commandments as law? If it is not right to kill someone, why does the government kill people all the time? There is a risk when pulling the trigger that this horrible fate will happen. It is a crime to kill someone, but the government "murders" people all the time without thinking

Capital Punishment

2000-11-10T13:00:00-05:00

Capital punishment is necessary in order for justice to prevail. Capital punishment is the execution of criminals for commiting crimes, regarding so bad that this is the only acceptable punishment. Capital punishment lowers the murder rate, but its value as retribution alone is a good reason for handing out death sentences. It is one of the only fair punishments allowed by the judicial system. Another issue is that it saves money compared to the alternative of life in prison. The death penalty deters murder and prevents murderers from killing again by putting the fear of death in to would be killers. A person is less likely to do something, if he or she thinks that harm will come to him. Another way the death penalty may help deter murder is the fact that if the killer is death, he or she will not be able to kill again. Criminals deserve to die and not stay in jail. If a man kills a man and is convicted he should be ready to die next. Supporters of the death penalty feel that criminals should be punished for their crimes, and that it doesn't matter whether it will deter crime. They want to make examples out of offenders so that the threat of death will be enough to stop them from commiting such horrible crimes. Some people might say to give the murderer life in prison. This is hardly a punishment at all. Today, due to overcrowding in prisons, a lot of prisoners don’t serve their full sentence.Another thing about today’s prisons is that the prisoners get free meals, clothes, bed, electricity, air conditioning and heating, cable and many other luxuries that make it a comfortable place to live if you get used to the people. The death penalty should be given the day after conviction. Many people believe that criminals live in prison off of other peoples hard earned money. Criminals should think of the consequences before they kill someone. If they don't do this or did and still killed someone, they probably aren’t intelligent enough to make any positive impact on the world or they are mentally unstable. They shouldn’t get off the hook for killing someone. people might feel that sentencing them to life in prison is punishment enough but to other people it is just getting off the hook. There are seven main types of execution: Hanging, where the prisoner is blindfolded and

Is the Death Penalty Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

2000-08-04T14:00:00-04:00

In order to determine whether the death penalty is to be considered cruel and unusual punishment, it is necessary to first define each word in order to get full understanding of the issue being assessed. According to the Merriam-Webster collegiate dictionary, cruel is defined as: “disposed to inflict pain or suffering

The Death Penalty: In the name of Justice?

2000-07-19T14:00:00-04:00

The state murdering people because of their crimes simply does not equate to justice. It is real easy to hear about how the government is doing this wrong or that, but the death penalty is abounded with so many injustices and faults that it’s an embarrassment to our entire due process of law. Supporters of capital punishment subscribe to religious and ethical points of view rather than facts, and when they do offer facts it’s always the same argument: “It’s a deterrent.” The death penalty is extreamly flawed, most notably it comes with a very high price tag to an already under-funded correctional institution in America; no stable argument has been installed to warrant it as a deterrent; and the moral decay it establishes creates among other things a feeling of revenge and spite within society. Many people for and against the death penalty are under the proposed belief that capital punishment is a deterrent for crime. No study can offer a clear explanation of this theory. Almost a dozen states don’t offer a death penalty, and a dozen more haven’t executed in over fifty years that have one. Are their first and second-degree murder rates head and shoulders above the other states? Of course not. Some of these states include large metropolis’ such as Minnesota’s twin cites. Detroit has a high crime rate (in actual number not on a per capita basis) in Michigan, which doesn’t offer a death penalty, but Birmingham has one of the highest crime rates per capita in the nation. What has Alabama’s electric chair not done in Birmingham that life in prison has done in St. Paul? Deter crime, particularly murder. Studies have shown that, all evidence in view, long prison terms punish just as effectively as capital sentences. The flaws of capital punishment become too many shortly after they total one. This is because of the focus of the death penalty that being human life. Innocent people being sent to death or being released within weeks of execution are becoming frequent stories on the nightly news. The legal system is disturbingly unable to correctly administer the death penalty. Every day individuals who can’t afford a lawyer have to have one appointed to them under the constitution. Almost thirty percent of Americans can’t afford health care, how are they supposed to afford a lawyer? These lawyers, who are on average paid 5 dollars an hour,

Death Penalty

2000-05-11T14:00:00-04:00

Electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, firing squad, hanging, guillotine, and garroting. When you hear these words what do you think of? Do you feel frightened? When some hear these words they tend to say, " Oh they deserve it". In the court system that is not always the case. The question you always have to ask yourself is what did the accused do and do they deserve the death penalty? What is bad enough to deserve death? Are their certain crimes that do and then some that do not? Almost every culture through out history has relied on the death penalty and capital punishment and justified as a necessary tool to maintain order. The only thing that changed throughout time were the crimes deemed punishable by death and the methods used to kill those found guilty. Some of the other countries' laws of capital punishment seem so barbaric. In ancient India, executions were sometimes carried out by having an elephant crush the condemned's head. Executions used to be public spectacles. In ancient Persia, one method of execution involved being eaten alive by insects and vermin. In the middle ages, methods of execution included chopping off limbs, stripping off the condemned person's skin, boiling in oil, drawing and quartering (cutting the persons innards and then tearing the body into four pieces), burning at the stake, and crucifixion. In 1692, a man refused to testify after his wife was accused of witchcraft and was " Pressed " to death. The sentence was carried out by lying him on a stone floor, placing a board over him, and piling stones upon the board. Benjamin Rush, credited with the beginning the movement to abolish capital punishment in the U.S, declared in 1792 that reform, not retribution, should be the goal of punishment. The Bible authorizes executing those who show contempt on their parents, walk without permission on sacred ground, practicing sorcery, sacrifice in foreign gods or who prostitute themselves. In the Bible Exodus 21:12 it says, " Whoever strikes a man a mortal blow must be put to death." Electrocution in the modern era. Electricity causes biological damage through both heat and electrochemical havoc. The electrical current itself abolishes the function of organs and tissues such as the brain, nerves, and heart by overwhelming the fragile bioelectrical basis of the metabolism. The voltage applied is not the most critical factor but is in fact, almost irrelevant as

Death Penalty: Just or Injust

1999-10-11T14:00:00-04:00

Death Penalty Introduction: The most severe of all sentences: that of death. Also known as the death penalty, capital punishment this is the most severe form of corporal punishment as it is requires law enforcement officers to kill the offender. It has been banned in many countries, in the United States, an earlier move to eliminate capital punishment has now been reversed and more and more states are resorting to capital punishment for serious offenses such as murder. An Eye for and eye, a life for a life, who has never heard of the famous lex talionis? The Bible mentions it, and people have been using it regularly for centuries. We use it in reference to burglary, adultery, love and many other situations. However, some people use it on a different level, some people use it in reference to death. One steals from those who have stolen from him, one wrongs those who have wronged him, but do we really have the right to kill those who have killed. Today, there is a big controversy over capital punishment whether or not it works, or if it is morally right. We have a certain privilege on our own lives, but do the lives of others belong to us as well? Do we have the right to decide the kind of lives others can or cannot live? We find someone guilty of murder and sentence him to death, does that not make murderers out of ourselves? Can justice justify our acts? Those who assist in the death penalty are they not partners in crime? Is the death penalty a "Cruel and Unusual" punishment or is it now a necessary tool in the war on crime? With the increase in crime and violence in our society, how does the death penalty affect a North American family. History of the Death Penalty: Use of the death penalty has declined throughout the industrial Western World since the 19th century. In 1972, movement in America to have the death penalty declared unconstitutional during the landmark case of Furman v. Georgia, which declared the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment. However, after a supreme court decision in 1975, Gregg v. Georgia, which stated capital punishment did not violate the eighth Amendment, executions commenced again under state supervision. (Van der Haag, 1975, 3-4) The debate: Deterrence: There are four major issues in the capital punishment debate, the first being deterrence. A major purpose

Persuasive Essay: Capital Punishment

1999-09-18T14:00:00-04:00

When turning on the television, radio, or simply opening the local newspaper, one is bombarded with news of arrests, murders, homicides, serial killers, and other such tragedies. It is a rare occasion to go throughout a day in this world and not hear of these things. So what should be done about this crime rate? Not only is it committing a crime, but today, it is signing your life over to the government. This is a risk one is taking when he decides to pull a trigger or plunge a knife, but is it really up to our justice system to decide one's fate? There are many issues that address this question of capital punishment such as religion, the effect on society, restitution being denied, the possible "wrongly accused", and the rights of the convicted. But how often do these concepts creep into the public's mind when it hears of our 'fair, trusty' government taking away someone's breathing rights? The Bible states "Thou shalt not kill," and this being a sin should have to be amended within oneself. However, the Bible also states "Don't judge others' personal convictions." It is the government's responsibility to punish people that disobey the law to keep our world in tact but is it their right to take away their lives? It is a Christian's responsibility to point out to those who sin that they do so and this country, trusting in God as it says it does, should do just that. So if the government stands strongly by this statement that's on the dollar bill, may they line up all the liars, adulterers, Buddhists, thieves, covetous and murderers at the chair. If they shall look into this one sin as so evil may they see all ten commandments so holy. The society is so confused as to what is "right." More and more children are becoming murderers themselves. The reason is obvious: they see that if they kill someone they go to jail, get the death penalty, and the government, who they know as the "good guy" kills them for punishment. Lesson learned: the finger is pointing to its own actions. Learning morals is only as hard as people make it. Why complicate things? Some people think that restitution is granted when one is sentenced to the death penalty. However, if a loved one is murdered and his family feels justice in having the murderer done

Capital Punishment

1999-09-13T14:00:00-04:00

I am all for Capital Punishment. I think that if you kill someone you should be given the death penalty. I think that the death of the killer would give family and friends a bit of ease over the death. Also the death should not be prolonged and should be done immediate. By giving the death penalty to some one it is fair and very just to me. If you kill someone you deserve to die and not stay in jail.. If a man kills a man and is convicted he should be ready to die next. When you give a killer the death penalty it would reassure the people close to the victim it would not happen again. Also it gives them the feeling that the death has been avenged. A family will feel less pain if the killer dies like he should. The death penalty should be give the day after conviction. When a killer stays in prison he takes up space in already over crowed prisons. Most people would want this so murders can live in prison off

Problems with Capital Punishment

1999-05-11T14:00:00-04:00

"Dead Man Walking!" This sound rings through each and every death row inmate a thousand times a day; But should it? Capital punishment is one of the most controversial topics among Americans today. Since every person has there own opinion on this topic, either for or against, the question always raised is "Is it morally right." The number of problems with the death penalty are enormous, ranging from innocence to racism, and these problems will never be resolved unless the death penalty is abolished. The problems with capital punishment stem as far back as the ritual itself. The number of occurrence on why the death penalty is racist is uncountable. A 1990 report released by the federal government's General Accounting Office found a "pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing and imposition of the death penalty after the Furman decision." Professor David Baldus examined sentencing patterns in Georgia in the 1970's. After reviewing over 2,500 homicide cases in that state, controlling for 230 non-racial factors, he concluded that a person accused of killing a white was 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than a person accused of killing a black. The Stanford Law Review published a study that found similar patterns of racial dispair, based on the race of the victim, in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Virginia. For example, in Arkansas findings showed that defendants in a case involving a white victim are three-and-a-half times more likely to be sentenced to death; in Illinois, four times; in North Carolina, 4.4 times, and in Mississippi five times more likely to be sentenced to death than defendants convicted of murdering blacks. There is also the issue of Capital Punishment being a deterrent. But does the death penalty really deter crime? The death lobby wants you to believe the answer to that question is "yes." But, in fact, it is a resounding "NO." Consider this...the US is the only Western nation that still allows the death penalty, and we also have one of the highest crime rates. During the 1980s, death penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5 criminal homicides per 100,000, while abolition states averaged a rate of 7.4 per 100,000. That means murder was actually more common in states that use the death penalty. Also consider this...in a nationwide survey of police chiefs and sheriffs, capital punishment was ranked last

A Permanent Death - Capital Punishment

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

There are five basic reasons that society uses when imposing "punishment" that I've been able to conclude from my readings. I will discuss these societal concepts and show that the death penalty does not serve to further them. As a result William Smith should not be subject to the death penalty and in fact the same should be abolished from our system of "punishment". Deterrence Deterrence is basically defined as "the punishment should fit the crime." Under this concept, the individual committing the crime and society are prevented from committing this action again. In the case of the death penalty, an individual kills another human and he is "punished" for it by death. Punishment is supposed to be a temporary penalization for a wrongful action. Death is far from temporary. One is to learn from one's mistakes. How can the person learn if they are paying for their mistake with their life? In Ernest van den Haag's article, "The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense" he states, "The death penalty is our harshest punishment. It is irrevocable: it ends the existence of those punished, instead of temporarily imprisoning them." (Haag, 251). By imposing the death penalty the individual does not learn from their mistakes and neither does society. Economy Under this concept, punishment should be economical. As Haag points out, "...the monetary cost of appealing a capital sentence is excessive." (Haag, 253). Further, "...actual monetary costs are trumped by the importance of doing justice." (Haag, 253). Additionally there are specific costs associated with keeping an inmate on death row, (i.e. the cost of the specially built prison blocks, the need for maximum security, etc.) and more. These costs clearly out weigh the regular costs incurred to house a regular inmate. Deterrence is clearly not served by imposing the death penalty and society aims for justice are thwarted. Restitution Society demands that the punishment should fix the harm it has done. By sentencing a person to death no harm has been fixed. You can not bring the murdered person back by taking the prisoner's life. "Punishment-regardless of the motivation is not intended to revenge, offset, or compensate for the victims suffering or to be measured by it." (Haag, 253). Retribution The community demands that justice be served. Would justice not equally be served and in fact may be better served by life imprisonment? I believe it would be a worse punishment to endure a life sentence in prison.