Death Penalty
It is more reasonable to utilize the death penalty than to abolish it. The death penalty should not be abolished because (1) it deters people from committing murder and (2) because the death penalty gives peace of mind to the victims and their families and puts an end to the crime. (1) The death penalty should not be abolished because the fear of the highest form of punishment will keep potential victims alive. (2) The death penalty should not be abolished because the families of the victims can only begin the healing process once the murderer is put to death. Response to objections to the thesis (1) Objection: The death penalty should be abolished because even the highest form of punishment will not remove the evil from society. Response: If the death penalty was abolished, the convicted murderer has the potential to escape and kill again. This will spread more evil and give the option to kill again to the murderer. (2) Objection: The execution of a convicted murderer will never bring the victims back to life. Therefore it serves no purpose other than to kill. Response: Resurrection has never been the purpose of the death penalty. The family members just
Although there is no concrete proof that executing convicted murderers deters future murders, common sense would indicate that as humans, we respond to punishment. If the death penalty deters even one innocent victim's murder, it is worth more than preserving the lives of convicted murderers. If there were no death penalty and a convicted murderer was sentenced to life without parole, they would not only soon adjust to prison life, but would have the potential to escape and kill again. The severity and finality of the death penalty is appropriate to the seriousness and the finality of murder. (3) The threat of 50 lashes deters more than the threat of 5: a $1000 fine deters more than a $10 fine; 10 years in prison deters more than 1 year in prison-just as, conversely, the promise of a $1000 reward is greater than the promise of a $10 The argument to the above is that the death penalty does not bring back any victim to life, therefore, unnecessary. Just because someone has taken a life, it doesn't mean that the convict's life should also be taken. Is it fair to take a bad situation and make it worse? Abolitionist's main argument is that capitol punishment can't remove the evil from society. No matter what the juridical laws that a country holds, heinous crimes will haunt and spread fear throughout as long as mankind is on this earth. There have been numerous studies that have concluded that the death penalty is not a deterrent. One of which is from the National Academy of Sciences. They concluded: "it seems unthinkable to us to base decisions on the use of the death penalty" on such "fragile" and "uncertain" resul
Some common words found in the essay are:
Academy Sciences, Press January, , Attorney's Office, death penalty, Response Resurrection, death penalty abolished, penalty abolished, Specter Pennsylvania, peace mind, peace mind victims, mind victims families, victims families, mind victims, Events July, Ed Death, University Press, Plenum Press, people committing, deters people committing, 2 death penalty, deters people, families crime, penalty peace, convicted murderer,
Approximate Word count = 1108
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|