April 26, 2013
Should the death penalty be used to punish violent criminals? No one should ever take another humans life no matter what. Killing people who kill just makes us the killers. Some people have been proven innocent after they have been executed. Criminals should expect to be killed if they killed someone else. The death penalty helps prevent future murders. It also gives closer to the victims family. It cost less money to kill someone than to keep them alive in jail. Tax payers should not have to pay for a criminal to live. Every year a prisoner gets older so their health care goes up. If you are proven guilty in a court of law of a crime that is so horrible, like murder with no reason, then you should be put to death. Killers should expect to be killed. With the death penalty in place less people die. If we go ahead and kill them now after they have killed some one then it prevents them from killing again. They cant kill the wittiness. They wont have the chance to plot any other killings. It gives closer to the victims family. The family gets to watch him die like he watched their family member die. Either way it cost a lot of money for someone to live in prison or be put to death. It cost more money to keep someone alive instead of killing them. Tax payers should not have to pay for a criminals life in jail. They have to pay for everything their clothes, shelter, and food. They also pay for their chance to get out of jail. Every year a prison gets older so tax payers also have to pay for their health care. It cost tax payers $140 billion over the course of one persons life in jail. If someone goes to jail at age 37 it cost the tax payers 49,000 a year and by the time they are 77 then they end up paying as much a 4 million. According to Petersen, Nicholas, and Mona Lynch, The decision to seek the death penalty in a pending murder prosecution triggers a number of consequences that affect the duration, complexity and cost of the trial proceedings. Death penalty trials clearly take longer and cost more than murder trials in which the death penalty is not sought. Unfortunately, we have only a rough estimate of how many death penalty trials are taking place each year in California (1240). As being tax payers you have to pay for their health care. I think that if the crime is that bad then just kill them instead of using tax payers money to keep them alive. Others may say we should never take another humans life no matter what. Killing people who kills other people just makes us the killer. The ten commandments say “Thou shall not kill” so why do we? An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind. People have been proven innocent after they have been put to death. Some times people frame other people for what they have done and then they go to jail and they are put on death row. The DNA we have today helps with the whole framing people. According to Aronson, Jay D, and Simon A. Cole, Scholars have worried that, as Liebman (2002) puts it, “What DNA giveth the death penalty reform impulse. DNA reform can taketh away”. Indeed, little more than a year after Quinones (2002b), the cultural authority of DNA evidence was turned against abolition. In 2003, in a proposal often dubbed “the guilty project” (an ironic counterpart to the Innocence Project), Massachusetts Governor (and later presidential candidate) Mitt Romney drew on the cultural authority of DNA evidence to support reforming and rejuvenating capital punishment rather than abolishing it. Just as some abolitionists argued that exculpatory DNA evidence provided epistemological certainty that states had at least come close to executing factually innocent persons, Romney argued the incriminatingDNA evidence could provide epistemological certainty of the guilt of candidates for execution.(606). Even though killing is wrong and we should not do it killers should expect to die if they kill someone. Some...