Skrah
Smash Ace
Well I need to get a paper ready on this subject for tomorrow, because we're gonna debate about it. Also I need to take a Pro/Con side on this subject. Right now I'm pro death penalty, since I don't think it's fair for murderers to have second chances. But since I'm an ignorant teen, I'm willing to hear all of your opinions :]
This is all I have written up till now:
The death penalty has been a very controversial punishment, and while some people think that no one should get it, there isn’t another suitable punishment for murderers. Not all countries apply the death penalty, and even then, some states in the United States do not use the death penalty. Some executions are decisive and swift, while others can be in wait for years, and sometimes murderers get a second chance that they do not deserve.
Many think that a viable option is the life sentence, which means being incarcerated the remainder of their lives. Although this could well be a suitable punishment, there are complications and ways around it. For one, the maintenance of the prisoner. Water, food, and all the other items that will sustain his life, are paid by taxes. Do you think it is fair on the country’s people that they are obligated to pay to maintain criminals like these? Criminals also sometimes get their sentence shortened. Criminals who are part of the mafia or other criminal organization are soon liberated through corrupted judges and jury, and soon are free to make more lives miserable.
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." This is a quote that the Marquette of the Department of Political Science John McAddams said. If we were to sentence, per say, 20 murderers, were some of them might be innocent, we have rid us of killers. But if we didn’t execute those 20 murders, we would be allowing the death of many more victims.
This is all I have written up till now:
The death penalty has been a very controversial punishment, and while some people think that no one should get it, there isn’t another suitable punishment for murderers. Not all countries apply the death penalty, and even then, some states in the United States do not use the death penalty. Some executions are decisive and swift, while others can be in wait for years, and sometimes murderers get a second chance that they do not deserve.
Many think that a viable option is the life sentence, which means being incarcerated the remainder of their lives. Although this could well be a suitable punishment, there are complications and ways around it. For one, the maintenance of the prisoner. Water, food, and all the other items that will sustain his life, are paid by taxes. Do you think it is fair on the country’s people that they are obligated to pay to maintain criminals like these? Criminals also sometimes get their sentence shortened. Criminals who are part of the mafia or other criminal organization are soon liberated through corrupted judges and jury, and soon are free to make more lives miserable.
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." This is a quote that the Marquette of the Department of Political Science John McAddams said. If we were to sentence, per say, 20 murderers, were some of them might be innocent, we have rid us of killers. But if we didn’t execute those 20 murders, we would be allowing the death of many more victims.
