Lethal injection has become the preferred method of execution in the United States since the early 80's. But is lethal injection a harsh enough penalty for murder? The answer is no, it is not a good enough punishment for someone who has taken the life of another. Lethal injection is a process that allows a convict to be put down quickly and painlessly, but what happened to the older methods? Methods such as hanging, electrocution, and firing squads are not used in a large scale these days. These methods are the kind that makes the offender miserable for the last moments of their life; these are the methods I think that should be used today. I am going to argue that the life in prison is not enough, the death penalty should be worse than what it is, and public executions have a greater deterrent effect.
There are a lot of families that want more justice to the person who killed a family member then life imprisonment and that is just what they should get. For a family who has one of their own taken from them, the grief they feel is unimaginable. They need justice to be served to aid them to deal with their loss; they need the victim's death to be avenged. Life imprisonment is not enough. It is not a help to a grieving family to let the offender spend the rest of his days in jail, eating three square meals a day and watching TV. Quite frankly, it is not proper justice on behalf of the victim either. Ancient civilizations would not have thought twice about sentencing a person to death for taking the life of another. Opponents of the death penalty would argue that the death penalty is barbaric and inhuman, but what about the murder of innocent people? Is life in prison the punishment we want people to believe they will receive for murder? Prisons these days are state of the art, with weight rooms, work programs, televisions, food, and warm beds.
Prison is a step up from the conditions that some people live in. Life in prison is more of a gift to some people then a punishment. Some people say that life in prison is worse then death because the offender will have to think about what they did every day for the rest of their life. Just knowing what they did is not good enough. Executions do not happen the minute after they commit a crime, there is enough time for them to think about what they have done while they wait for their life to be ended.
Executing life prisoners will save money in long run. If a criminal committed a murder at 18 and lived to the average life expectancy of an American, taxpayers would have to pay for that convict for at least 50 years. If that same criminal was executed at 19 hundreds of thousands of dollars would be saved on that convict alone. In a system that is overworked and overcrowded it could be just the thing to aid the criminal justice system that it so desperately needs. Needed jail space would be freed up for criminals with lesser offenses who might receive probation and commit other offenses. The money it would save would enable a lower amount of money to be allotted to prisons that have to house these inmates who could have received death. That money could in turn be used in programs to help deter people at and early age from committing all types of crimes.
Some murderers will never feel remorse for what they have done, what will life in prison do for those people? There is an old saying "an eye for an eye" and only with that theory can justice be served. Since ancient times criminals have received the death penalty because the crimes they have committed have damaged people and families forever. Murderers are not good enough to receive life in prison. They have committed the ultimate crime, taking the life of another. Allowing convicted murderers to receive the mercy of the courts and get life is the wrong message we want to tell the public. To let murders off easy is an insult to the victims, the families, and society as a whole.
Lethal injection is too lenient of a death penalty...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document