Should the state government or the federal government have
the power to end the life of an individual?
Should anyone have the power to decide who dies and who lives? The moral question surrounding capital
punishment is not whether those who are convicted of heinous crimes deserve to
die, but should the government have the power to kill that individual. The death penalty should be unconstitutional
because it violates the Eighth Amendment.
How is the death penalty not “a cruel and unusual punishment?” The death penalty takes the most precious
thing a person has: their right to live.
The death
penalty is another form of revenge.
Retribution is just another form of revenge. Killing the individual that has committed
unspeakable crimes is only continuing the cycle of violence. The death of this individual does not give
the victims closure. This is a
myth. There is no justification of
taking the life of another individual even if he/she is a menace to society. The death penalty ends the life of another
person not an animal. Taking the life of
another person goes against the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism
and Hinduism. Under no circumstances
should an individual or the government take the life of another person yet thirty
two states have the death penalty.
In an
economic point of view, the death penalty costs a lot more than life without
parole. According to the California
Commission of Fair Administration of Justice, the average cost of the death
penalty system is 137 million dollars a year.
The death penalty costs 90,000 dollars more per inmate than a sentence
of life without parole in a maximum security prison. Also according to the death penalty
information center, pre trial and trial costs since 1978 in California add up to 1.94 billion
dollars. Also automatic appeals and state
habeas corpus petitions cost 925 million dollars, incarceration costs about 1
billion dollars and federal habeas corpus appeals cost around 775 million
dollars. Judge Arthur Alcarcon and
Professor Paula Mitchell calculated that if the governor commuted the sentences
of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would save around
170 million dollars per year. Why do we
have the death penalty? Life without
parole would cost less and that individual would be locked up in a maximum
security prison. These individuals will
no longer be a menace to society. The
only reason for the death penalty is revenge.
Sources
Vincent, I assume that the purpose of this post is to create an argument of whether or not the federal government have the right to end the life of an individual. As I continued to read through the post I see two different themes/topics. The first topic I saw was the reasoning for death penalties and then the second topic was about penalty costs. I think you should solely focus on your middle paragraph and provide factual evidence and statistics to support your purpose as to why death penalty is a form of revenge. Instead of providing factual information on the costs of death penalties, you should discuss government's power or rights in death penalties. I find it shocking when you say the phrase "kill the individual". Instead of using the word kill, possibly use a less bold word? On the positive side, I like how you introduced your topic with a question. In my opinion, the question in the beginning drew my attention. Overall, this topic would be really interesting if you provided more evidence to support your second paragraph.
ReplyDeleteThanks Vincent. I understand what Lisa is saying. I will offer a different take, though. Your intent is to make a case against the death penalty, and you offer two different reasons 1) it is inhumane and 2) it is too expensive. I get that. The issue is that you really offer no evidence to support your claims in your second paragraph. You make a very bold statement about the death penalty not offering "closure" to the victims' families. You say this is a "myth." You definitely need to offer the same substantiation for this claim as you offer in your third paragraph. Otherwise you have no credibility.
ReplyDeleteYou write this post fairly well. There are a few things you could have done to improve the writing just a bit, but none of those things are major, and they certainly don't detract from the overall quality of this post. Good job.