The death penalty has been one of the biggest issues argued over for many years. So many disagree on withier it’s morally wrong or not or When it comes down to the options available in this situation there are only two, either kill them or don’t. The cost of imprisonment in the United States is approximately 63.4 billion a year to tax payers (Teichner 1), The United States also spends approximately 2.3 million a year on executing someone. I think most would agree that it seems like a better idea to spend less money imprisoning people, where you have a sort of insurance so you aren’t wasting even more money killing the wrongly accused, rather than automatically sentencing death and then having to pay for two plus executions because you first killed the wrong person. There are so many murder cases where a so called “criminal’ is convicted, and then later released from prison because they were wrongly accused. What if this case had never been continued and they automatically put this person’s name at the top of death row?
This person, a wrongly accused “criminal” would have died for something they didn’t do. In the same situation where this accused person is convicted of murder, what if this person was released but actually was a murderer? The victim’s family and close ones would never be able to find closure and move on with their lives knowing that first off this person was accused of killing the one they loved and was later released from prison, and secondly the one who actually caused was either set free, or is more than likely never to be found. . So how do we know if someone is really a so called “criminal”? Who is to make this decision? Sure, the technology we have now is much more advanced then 10 or even 2 years ago, but even with the “proof” that someone is a murderer should a certain person or persons really be allowed to decide if someone’s life should end or not? When arguing that the death penalty is right, the phrase “An eye for an eye” always seems to arise.
It makes no sense for someone to kill someone who has killed, in order to prove that killing is wrong. Victoria Coward, a victim of her own son’s murder, was asked to be a part of the debate about the murderer’s sentence. Victims of murder cases tend to shy away from the idea of making the decision about taking the killers own life, probably because of the loss they are already feeling, and because they do not feel as if it’s their responsibility to make such a decision. In the end Coward stated “The death penalty doesn’t help at all, if you have the nerve to kill somebody, you should be able to sit there every day and think about what you did.” (Liptak)
Liptak, Adam. Does the death penalty save lives? A new debate. 18, November 2007. 15, October, 2012. <http://LAtimes.com/2007/11/18/us/deter.html?pagewanted=all
Teichner, Martha “The cost of incarceration”22, April 2012. 10, November 2012. <http://m.cbsnews.com/storysunopsis.rmbl?pageType=sundaymorning&catid=57418495&feed_id=35
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX