Vincent Brother's Argumentative Essay For The Defense
Appellate Attorney Phillip Cherney for the defence.
From the days of creation, when Caine killed Abel and punishment passed by God was to roam the Earth for the rest of his life, there has always been some form of judgement for crime.
Your honour and members of the jury (facing judge), we are not here to debate whether this man, Vincent Brothers, is innocent or guilty despite being convicted on circumstantial evidence. Rather the unconstitutional fate of capital punishment inflicted by the State of California for murder.
From the beginning of time, society has not always accepted that the punishment fits the crime. There is always uncertainty and bitterness with the belief that the punishment has been too harsh or too lenient.
Today Vincent …show more content…
Nevertheless, life imprisonment fulfils the states obligation to punish crime and protect the community.
• Capital punishment is assumed to deter crime. Yet, Sstudies in 2012 decisively showed that murder is 30% more likely to occur in states implementing the death penalty. (Amnesty USA, 2012)
• Capital punishment is believed to be less expensive than life in prison. However the average time on death row is 15.8 years and the annual cost in California for the death penalty system is $232million compared to $11.5 million for lifetime incarceration (DPIC, 2014).
Conclusion
The blindfold has been lifted, look around, this is not a fair trial, you are not impartial, and capital punishment is inhumane. It is not restitution but vengeance created by the state who pretend to represent societal views. A civilised society? I think not, for no civilised society would not enforce this brutal form of revenge. God, himself cast Caine to a life of isolation rather than death. Members of the jury there is no doubt that Vincent Brothers has not been granted a fair trial and as such he cannot be sentence to
From the days of creation, when Caine killed Abel and punishment passed by God was to roam the Earth for the rest of his life, there has always been some form of judgement for crime.
Your honour and members of the jury (facing judge), we are not here to debate whether this man, Vincent Brothers, is innocent or guilty despite being convicted on circumstantial evidence. Rather the unconstitutional fate of capital punishment inflicted by the State of California for murder.
From the beginning of time, society has not always accepted that the punishment fits the crime. There is always uncertainty and bitterness with the belief that the punishment has been too harsh or too lenient.
Today Vincent …show more content…
Nevertheless, life imprisonment fulfils the states obligation to punish crime and protect the community.
• Capital punishment is assumed to deter crime. Yet, Sstudies in 2012 decisively showed that murder is 30% more likely to occur in states implementing the death penalty. (Amnesty USA, 2012)
• Capital punishment is believed to be less expensive than life in prison. However the average time on death row is 15.8 years and the annual cost in California for the death penalty system is $232million compared to $11.5 million for lifetime incarceration (DPIC, 2014).
Conclusion
The blindfold has been lifted, look around, this is not a fair trial, you are not impartial, and capital punishment is inhumane. It is not restitution but vengeance created by the state who pretend to represent societal views. A civilised society? I think not, for no civilised society would not enforce this brutal form of revenge. God, himself cast Caine to a life of isolation rather than death. Members of the jury there is no doubt that Vincent Brothers has not been granted a fair trial and as such he cannot be sentence to