On May 1993, a man named Nathan Dunlap, shot five workers at Chuck E Cheese at Aurora, Colorado. Four of them, passed away and one survived a shot to the face. On July 2012, James Holmes created a massacre also at The Aurora Theater in Aurora, Colorado. There was a total seventy victims, were twelve were killed, and fifty-eight were injured. The last man to ever cause capital punishment to rise was Ariel Castro, who kidnapped three women in certain years, and kept them captive for more than a decade, in Cleveland, Ohio. Due to this, capital punishment has caused people all over the world to change their beliefs about what charge men who have done heinous crime should be given. Capital Punishment is not right because when chosen, the lives
…show more content…
He killed 4 workers at Chuck E Cheese because he was fired for working too many hours. All this was done in cold blood. Not only did he kill four workers and injured one, but he robbed $1,500 and merchandise. According to the jury of Nathan’s case, the prosecutor states that “We think it is desirable for the jury to have as much information before it is possible when it makes the sentence decision.” Nathan was discovered as the culprit because his friend, Carl Wilson, testified against him (Sanez 1).
Nathan Dunlap did deserve the death penalty, even though the robbery was not enough to charge him with this, but the murdering was. He not only acted on anger, but he killed in cold blood. He is getting the true reason to why everyone asked to have him sentenced with the death penalty. He wanted …show more content…
All three men did commit a bad crime, but each took this crime upon themselves differently.This is the main cause of why sentencing the death penalty is wrong. When there is not enough evidence, and the jury wants to sentence a man to the death penalty, you cannot kill someone. There must be viable reasons to why he/she deserves the death penalty.The death penalty is considered unconstitutional but to having all evidence, as well as certain criterias to why he his being sentenced with this, then there is no reason to why the certain person does not deserve this death penalty. In all, the person deserves to suffer the utmost equivalent amount of what the victims suffered. There must be true
He killed 4 workers at Chuck E Cheese because he was fired for working too many hours. All this was done in cold blood. Not only did he kill four workers and injured one, but he robbed $1,500 and merchandise. According to the jury of Nathan’s case, the prosecutor states that “We think it is desirable for the jury to have as much information before it is possible when it makes the sentence decision.” Nathan was discovered as the culprit because his friend, Carl Wilson, testified against him (Sanez 1).
Nathan Dunlap did deserve the death penalty, even though the robbery was not enough to charge him with this, but the murdering was. He not only acted on anger, but he killed in cold blood. He is getting the true reason to why everyone asked to have him sentenced with the death penalty. He wanted …show more content…
All three men did commit a bad crime, but each took this crime upon themselves differently.This is the main cause of why sentencing the death penalty is wrong. When there is not enough evidence, and the jury wants to sentence a man to the death penalty, you cannot kill someone. There must be viable reasons to why he/she deserves the death penalty.The death penalty is considered unconstitutional but to having all evidence, as well as certain criterias to why he his being sentenced with this, then there is no reason to why the certain person does not deserve this death penalty. In all, the person deserves to suffer the utmost equivalent amount of what the victims suffered. There must be true