The death penalty has been an ongoing debate for many years. The following essay will not solve the issue either; I will only try to persuade the reader to understand my point of view. The death penalty has both supporters and non-supporters. The death penalty is justified in certain cases such as Mcveigh Vs State of Indiana; however it is unjustified when in other cases, including Bloodsworth Vs State of Maryland. The death penalty is a must, especially in today's society. With the increase in vicious crimes today, the government must act just as harsh with our justice system to try and prevent these types of crimes. Non-supporters argue that the death penalty is inhumane and should be considered murder. People of this malicious caliber must be dealt with in the same way, an eye for an eye. Putting these criminals to death doesn't solve the crime that they committed, but it helps the victim's family and friends to feel a sense of justification for what's happened to them.
Capital Punishment has been part of the criminal justice system since the earliest of times. The earliest historical record that contains evidence of capital punishment is the Babylonian Hammurabi Code. "It ordered death for crimes as minor as the fraudulent sale of beer. Egyptians could be put to death for disclosing the location of sacred burial sites." During the time of the code you were put to death for the smallest crimes, which now would be a minor offense or even considered being nothing Today, capital punishment is still apparent in society. People are put to death because of murder or rape. The different types of punishment used are anywhere from hanging to lethal injection. The death penalty is a better deterrent than imprisonment because taking offenders life is more of a severe punishment. By using the death penalty as a type of punishment, it will in the future prevent other criminals from committing similar crimes and eventually make our society a much better place to live. The concept is very simple, the death penalty prevents a murders by putting the fear of death into would be killers. A person is less likely to do something, if he or she thinks that harm will come to him. Another way the death penalty prevent murder, is the fact that if the killer is dead, he will not be able to kill again. As Issac Ehlrich is quoted saying, "If the execution of a guilty capital murderer deters the murder of one innocent life, the execution is justified." This means that if the news of an execution changes a potential murderer the death penalty is appropriate act for the situation. The Bible also states that there should be retribution for a crime. The Bible says "whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall be shed." This statement has been interpreted as a divine justification for putting a murderer to death. A very fine example of the death penalty doing something for the general welfare of the American people is the death sentence of Timothy McVeigh, the brains behind the Oklahoma City bombing. "On April 19, 1995, 168 people, including many young children in the day care center, died in the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK." Many people believed that McVeigh should fry in the chair, and it looks like it will happen. It shows that capital punishment does some good for the country to keep the citizens safe from violent offenders such as convicted murderers and rapists. Capital punishment is a logical form of justice for the United States, even though many people are against it. For the people against the death penalty, they need to realize that capital punishment is for the general welfare of the people because the death penalty is the most logical way to punish criminals of vicious crimes. Everyone in the world needs to follows certain laws, and if they are broken, the accused has to pay to price for his or her crime. The sentences might be anywhere from ten to twenty years in prison, but some crimes force the defendant to die for...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document