Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty

For the most part I agree with the writer idea. I like what the writer said how the justice was served by the court. Kinkl murdered 4 people and attempted 26 murder case, so he deserve 112 years to be in prison. Even though Kinkl has a mental disorder problem, he was a danger to the community and needed to be watched by the government for the public safety. The audience can clearly see what happened on the Kiniakl cause from the court report that is presented.

The topic I chose was actually breaking news last evening. On Tuesday night in Missouri, the Supreme Court halted a scheduled execution, stating delay of the lethal injection until a lower court ruled on the issue. In 1994, Ernest Lee Johnson was sentenced to death for killing three people with a claw hammer Attorney’s for Johnson asked the Supreme Court to stay the execution due to a surgery Johnson had in 2008 to remove a brain tumor. The attorneys wrote, part of the tumor in Johnson’s head could not be removed and he is missing between 15 and 20 percent of his brain. Citing a doctor’s medical expert opinion, he believes Johnson could suffer seizures due to the lethal injection.

In this research paper, I will be talking about the moratorium of the death penalty, also known as, the capital punishment for criminals who have committed a serious crime. Following the discussion of Gregg v. Georgia Case, that happened in 1976, Furman v. Georgia, and how they each contributed to the moratorium of the death penalty. Later, comparing and contrasting about some aggravated assaults and mitigating assaults and how they differ from each other. Also about the direct causes of the moratorium of the death penalty. Then explain the indirect effects of the moratorium and the procedure of capital punishment and the policy of the death penalty.

Editor Anna Quindlen wrote many articles and essays conveying her opinion toward the death penalty. Such as, “Death Penalty Fails to Equal Retribution” and “Public & Private; The High Cost of Death”. Although Anna Quindlen makes many valuable accusations regarding her reasoning to being opposed to the death penalty, she undermines the real purpose of the penalty itself. The Death penalty, is indeed necessary. Many of the accusations Anna proclaims permit to the emotions of the victims families that have been robbed of their loved one by the said killer.

Imagine, your children are flipping through the channels and they come to find a prisoner being displayed ready to be executed. They have just witnessed a person's life being taken away. Zachary Shemtob teaches Criminal Justice at Central Connecticut State University; David Lat is a former federal prosecutor. Together, they worked on an essay and published it in the New York Times in 2011. The essay is an analysis of whether, "Executions Should be Televised.

David Oshinksy’s most recent book, Capital Punishment on Trial: Furman v. Georgia and the Death Penalty in Modern America, focuses on the extremely controversial yet important issue of capital punishment in the United States. Oshinsky’s text covers the debated topic in a scholarly yet concise way. With the text being a mere 125 pages, he covers the prolonged, contentious history of the death penalty. At the beginning of the book, Oshinsky describes what occurred in the early hours of August 11, 1967. William Micke was suddenly murdered in the hallway of his house by William Henry Furman, a disabled, illiterate 24 year old who had a troubled past with law enforcement.

In his article “To Kill or Not to Kill”, Scott Turow tries to convince the audience advocating the capital-punishment system in Illinois to inspect its fairness and efficacy. He tackles this issue because he provides that the system is defective. Even though he goes back and forth from favoring the capital punishment issue to rejecting it, he clearly states his penalty opposition, supporting it with powerful examples, factual data, and a metaphor. To appear moral, credible, and knowledgeable, the author uses his scholarly tone, demonstrating his respectable position. He, as a lawyer and “one… members of a commission appointed by Governor”, had to present his position on the law during the reforms of the capital punishment system in Illinois.

During the Progressive period, some states started to eliminate the death penalty: “six states completely outlawed the death penalty and three limited it to the rarely committed crimes of treason and first-degree murder of a law enforcement official” (FindLaw). World War 1 had caused six of these states to return to capital punishment. With the increase of death rates, people started to become more and more against the idea of the death penalty. From the “1920s to the 1940s, there was a revival in the use of the death penalty” (FindLaw). During this time frame, the death penalty increased greatly.

Sherman Alexie’s “Capital Punishment” made me feel sad when reading it. I have always believed that America can do something other than execution of criminals. Something that surprised me in this poem was when the speaker says, “but the killer doesn’t want much: baked potato, salad, tall glass of ice water” (3-4). I always thought of criminal’s last meals being extravagant. I always thought their last meal would be expensive and something they don’t have very often.

The novel In Cold Blood, by Truman Capote and the passage from Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment, by John Stuart Mill are both works of literature that focus on the use of the death penalty. In Cold Blood tells a story of two men, Richard Hickock and Perry Smith, who savagely murder a family of four during the 1950’s. Through capture of the killers, the trial that they must face and the execution of the men, Capote gives the readers insight on his wavering beliefs about capital punishment. In contrast, Mill uses his speech written in 1868 to ensure society that the death penalty is the most appropriate action to take when sentencing a killer. Although the authors have different views on the morality of capital punishment, Capote and Mill use rhetorical devices to express their arguments.

I learned that you have to listen to everyone even if it seems like they will not have information needed you will never know unless you just listen to what they have to say because it is easy to incriminate the innocent but difficult to prove their innocence. This nonfiction book help me shaped my thoughts on the death penalty by opening my eyes to the truth, truth is that not everything is what it seems and not every offender is completely guilty for the crime they have been accused of. I now comprehend that each crime is different and sometimes it does include two offenders and even though those two offenders committed the crime and worked together to fulfill the goal to break a law, the Justice System is not always right and the sentences they give out are not always the correct ones. I am for the death penalty, although I have never lost a family member due to a criminal act, I still consider the death penalty a perfect sentence for someone who commits a crime of high risk so I agree with Harvey. Reading this novel has not changed my thoughts on the American Legal system, I have background knowledge on how the system works and I fully comprehend the advantages of being wealthy and getting trouble with the law.

Should America continue to allow the death penalty? This essay will tell you why America should not be continue the death penalty. For starters, the death penalty is punishment by death; usually resulting after a crime that America calls capital crimes or capital offences. There are many of reasons why the death penalty should not be carried out in America or anywhere “Application of the death penalty tends to be arbitrary and capricious; for similar crimes, some are sentenced to death while others are not.”

The topic of capital punishment presents a test of values. The arguments in support of and opposition to the death penalty are complex. In the end, this is a question of an individual’s values and morals. The topic requires careful thought to reach a reasoned position. Both sides of the argument are defensible.

This article discusses individual cases and crimes and gives analysis of the arguments made against death penalty in real world. Firstly it discusses the deterrence argument while going through a number of cases. The conclusion is that it has no effect on reducing homicides but ironically it breeds violence as in some cases offenders committed a capital crime in a territory where execution still prevails while they could have easily avoided it. Second thing discussed is the cost, the research in article shows that it costs significantly more money to put a convict to death than to incarcerate him for life in a prison. Moreover it is shown that in many cases criminals are executed while there are reasonable doubts in their convictions and some have avoided execution by just a few hours before being exonerated.

He believed by explaining these details, it would offer more insight on why the death sentence should be enforced. Each case explained who the criminals were, what crime they committed, and what they did to their victims that got involved. By providing these cases the senator wanted to provide more insight to help others understand why they got the death penalty and why they deserved it. He then concludes that these days the death penalty is not enforced today as it was a long time ago and that the citizens who abide the law want a just punishment of the death penalty rather than a life