To argue against the death penalty is to argue for what is right and just. To argue against the death penalty, one must argue against people with absurdly unreasonable, underlying assumptions, with emotionally-based arguments, made nearly invisible by cultural programming…
Our cultural mythology leads us to expect that evil must be destroyed and that happily ever after will win out in the end. We have to look carefully beyond our underlying mythology to understand the science of evil, to understand value relativity and the consequences of abuse and damaged lives. If we are critical thinkers who want to do the right thing, we have no choice but to be firmly against the death penalty, under all circumstances, because life is precious. To sentence someone to life in prison is a far more effective deterrent to crime than to execute (Meserli). The threat of execution can be seen as a thrilling gamble by some, like a game of Russian roulette. In risking life, it becomes an extreme sport, to a career criminal, to do violent crime. Death is an honorable drama, especially if faced without remorse. But there is no honor, not even criminal honor, in living a life of no freedom, wasting life behind bars. Life in prison offers a long time for self reflection and places a criminal, who preys upon others, into the role of prey for even worse others. This might eventually lead to an understanding of life’s worth. ...
The victim is still wronged and still dead. The family still grieves. The attention around an execution surely cannot help the family. Families sometimes say they do not want the death of the perpetrator. They understand it serves no purpose and they choose to forgive (O'Shea). Those who strongly want an execution are thinking emotionally, and not rationally. They have been reduced to immoral thinking when they, like the criminal, lust after death. The State should be sensitive to how they feel, but should not commit murder to make them feel better. It severely victimizes the prisoner’s family to see a relative put to death by the State. This is inhumane, and it violates our constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This is especially critical in the case of mistakes, in which innocent people are convicted and executed, or cases in which mentally ill people or mentally retarded people are executed. Even with all our fancy technology, mistakes in judgment and evidence are made. To put a face on one of those mistakes, we can consider the case of Leo Jones. Florida police arrested Mr. Jones as a suspect in the killing of a policeman. For the next 12 hours, Florida police beat him, threatened him, tortured him, and forced him to play Russian roulette (Griffin). Leo Jones was understandably afraid that the police would kill him. In fact, the police repeatedly told him they were going to kill him. Responsive to this, he signed a confession, even though he was innocent. The circumstances of the coerced confession were presented to the court, and still this innocent man was declared guilty and sentenced to die by the electric chair. Mr. Jones appealed, but his appeals were denied. When personal justice was not achievable, he turned his ...
Cite this document
(“Life is Precious. Argue Against The Death Penalty. Persuasive Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/other/5706-persuasive-essay
(Life Is Precious. Argue Against The Death Penalty. Persuasive Essay)
“Life Is Precious. Argue Against The Death Penalty. Persuasive Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/other/5706-persuasive-essay.
In order to ascertain that life imprisonment is the best alternative to death penalty, it is best to assess the merits and demerits of both forms of punishment and their impact to the society. Death sentence holds plenty of moral controversy owing to the taking of another’s life.
In United States the legal administration of it is complex it involves four critical steps: 1. Sentencing 2. Direct Review, 3. State Collateral Review 4. Federal Habeas Corpus. (www.aclu.org).
The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C.
Some people have said that by allowing the killing of a criminal, it will only teach others that revenge is what capital punishment is all about, instead of seeing it as a means to removing a danger permanently from society.
In analyzing capital punishment, a person must look at it from all angles.
Supporters believe that the penalty is justified (at least for murderers) by the principle of retribution, that life imprisonment is not an equally effective deterrent, and that the death penalty affirms the right to life by punishing those who violate it in the most strict form.
A man, for instance, who has been adjudged guilty of murdering another man, will be sentenced to death. The manner of death is another issue altogether. Many imaginative and cruel ways of implementing the death penalty have been witnessed through time - from the guillotine to the garrote to firing squads to gas chambers to electric chairs -- before the more "humane" lethal injection has been made the manner of choice in countries that consider themselves civilized.
The concern that rises here is that why so many countries including the United States have swallowed the truth that long-term imprisonment is better than execution. However, there are nations that still believe the effectiveness
The author explains that many countries have been practicing death penalty including developed countries such as the United States and Japan. Some of the less developed countries that practice death penalty include Congo and Chad. There have been differences in opinions, leading to the abolishment of capital punishment.
Whereas, the definition of capital offenders differs, many offenders who are guilty of taking the life of others fall into the category of capital offenders. Despite that fact that capital offenders attract capital judgment decisions such as the death penalty, there are strong arguments that people have raised against this practice.