Instructor Denise Pica
November 8, 2010
Keeping the Death Penalty
In the article “Stop the Death Penalty”, author Bill Richardson explains his position on the death penalty. Richardson starts the article by saying that he used to be a firm believer in the death penalty; however, six years ago he started to have a change of heart. Richardson now feels that the death penalty is irrevocable and should be stopped. He continued by saying that life without the possibility of parole is a better option. There are a number of people who would disagree with Richardson. Capital punishment can be the only true justice in certain cases. The death penalty should not be stopped, because life without the possibility of parole is not a guarantee that the inmate won’t kill again. Furthermore, with necessary changes, the death penalty can be a meaningful and just way to keep society safe.
The death penalty should be continued because it is equal justice to the crime committed and is a power that the state must exercise to put away heinous murderers. Life without possibility of parole is Richardson’s solution to punishing murders instead of the death penalty. However, his solution to make society safe from dangerous killers is flawed and cannot replace the justice that the death penalty brings. There are some people that are too dangerous and should be completely eliminated from society, and life without parole will not ensure an inmate won’t kill again. Because of a lapse of judgment of the individuals that operate California’s penal system, a brutal murderer was able to kill again. According to the article, “California Warden Now believes that Executions Don’t Make us Safer”, Robert Lee Massie was sentenced to death for the murder of a mother of two in 1965. When the death penalty was banned after being ruled unconstitutional in 1972, his sentence was changed to life with a possibility of parole. He was paroled in 1978 and months later...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document