Richard Ramirez Essay

Abstract Richard Ramirez was born Ricardo Leyva Muñoz on February 29, 1960, in El Paso, Texas, he was the youngest of seven from Mexican immigrants parents who were rail road works name Julian and Mercedes Ramirez which his father was from Morelia Mexico and his mom from the City of Juarez. Richard as a child had a troubled childhood because of his head injuries at an early age and began to experience epileptic fits. During his childhood and teen life, Richard began to sniff glue and smoking marijuana. At age twelve he began spending time with his cousin Mike who returned from war. Mike showed Richard photos of Vietnamese women he had raped, tortured, and killed, and also taught him how to keep hidden and kill with secrecy.

The costs of capital murder trials are more expensive than other murder trials for many of reasons. Often in murder trials where the death penalty is not being sought, the case never goes to trial and the offender pleads to a lesser degree of murder such as second degree murder or manslaughter. Depending on the location in the country, a prosecutor may be swayed politically or by the victim’s family to agree to life in prison without the possibility of parole. What makes a capital murder trial so expensive is “the high cost of crime scene investigations, pretrial preparations and motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and heightened death row security and maintenance costs” (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2015, p. 493). The overall

Alex Rodríguez had a great career according to “Baseball Reference”, at the beginning of Alex Rodriguez’s career he was drafted 1st overall by the Mariners and his debut was the following and he looked like he had it all hitting, fielding, and speed and versatility. He continued to dominate for the Mariners in 1996 he finished second in the MVP voting and played with them until he left in free agency to the Texas Rangers. They signed him for 10 years 252 million dollars (Hascup). Then he was deemed the richest baseball player in MLB history. He played with the Rangers till 2004 the year after he won his first MVP award when they failed to make the playoffs he was traded to the New York Yankees and was forced to move to third base because of

Ricardo Leyva Muñoz Ramírez, AKA Richard Ramirez was a serial killer and rapist operating in the L.A. and San Francisco area, from 1984-85. He was called the night stalker by the news media and was one of the most vicious killers in U.S. history. Richard Ramirez’s early life was pretty good, even had his dad as a role model. Till he got hooked on drugs, then he found a new role model. His cousin Mike who was vietnam veteran decided to show some polaroid photos of people he’s killed, but not on duty.

The Attorney General alone donates 15% of his budget, to death penalty cases. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 per year. It cost more than $31,000 to keep someone in prison for a year. The most recent report is that only fifteen states have gotten rid of it all together. These states being Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Pojman’s argument against the objections to capital punishment is not completely valid. If we understand the human being, we can also understand that humans are spiteful people and many people are filled with the hopes of revenge. Therefore, the thirst of revenge could potentially be a contributing factor as to why people are for the death penalty. Even if Pojman doesn’t believe in revenge, it should not be a valid reason for him to ignore its potential in justice and decision making during trials. This world is already filled with bitterness towards one another and we, as a society, cannot stop it because we all have different morals.

Framing Truths How do we know what is true? How do we know if a man sentenced to death was truly a murderer? A question echoed by thousands of people revolting against the death penalty as the story of Todd Willingham made it to the headlines. In The New Yorker, under the title of Trial by Fire, came the terrifying enigma: “Did Texas execute an innocent man?” followed by a thorough listing of the evidence that was used to convict Willingham of setting his house on fire and resulting in the death of his three children, and how they were later disproved. There is a great misconception about the source of controversy in issues like these.

• Iowa Congressman Steve King filed an amendment to a Treasury Department funding bill to prohibit the department from redesigning currency to showcase Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. He added the effort to replace Andrew Jackson was “liberal activism on the part of the president that’s trying to identify people by categories.” (I recall Reason doing a fair amount of coverage when the Tubman news first broke, so this could be a good follow-up) http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/house-could-vote-to-block-harriet-tubman-from-20-bill-224637 • In November, Californians will have the opportunity to repeal the state’s death penalty law. The measure is likely to compete with an initiative that seeks to speed up cases where the death penalty is

Although the death penalty may bring some closure to families of the victims and even the victims themselves it still should be abolished because the negatives outweigh the positives. People could be murdered by the state even if they are innocent. They are taking away any chance these people have at a normal life even though it's a life that they deserve and did nothing to have it taken away. 6. Conclusion

The first objection is that the death penalty does not "provide a measure of moral desert" (Nathanson). For the second, Nathanson states "it does not provide an adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment." The main objection is an "eye for an eye", or Lex talionis, and I believe it fails to support equality retributivism and creates punishments that are morally unacceptable. There is no way that

Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 87(1), 1. doi:10.2307/1143970 This article was written by Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L. Akers. They both consulted experts on criminology and criminal behaviour to evaluate the effectiveness of the Death Penalty.

Even though it is true that taking the life of another is not right, it is even truer that the punishment should fit the crime. The death penalty is an exercise of justice that promotes retribution for crime and moral punishment for those who choose to take human life. Also, it prevents society 's worse offenders from re-offending, and it provides justice for the victims whose lives were cut short without a second thought. To better understand why capital punishment is a justifiable act, Kant 's theory gives a clear and logical understanding of the eye for an eye approach. Additionally the utilitarian view also explains why capital punishment is justifiable in regards to comfort for the victim 's family and prevention of re-offending.

Why death penalty must end ‘’An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,’’ said Mahatma Gandhi. The execution of someone who has possibly done a crime is an inhuman act. Death penalty is hypocritical and flawed. If killing is wrong, why do we kill when a criminal has done the crime of killing someone? In this essay, I will write why death penalty should end by writing about the violation of human rights, execution of innocent people, the fact that it does not deter crime and money.

The cost of the death penalty is ridiculous. Mainly the death penalty is against colored. The cost of the death penalty is far more expensive than the criminals that are in jail for life. Death of innocent people is caused by the death penalty, the government has mistakenly killed several people because they didn’t find enough evidence to prove innocent but after the death of the victim the government notice they had killed wrong, could you bring the dead back? Do people really deserve to die?

In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.