Analysis of the Arguments Surrounding the Possibility of the Death Penalty in the Case of the Parkland Shooter
With the recent events in Parkland, Florida being plastered on the news at all hours of the day, there are many discussions taking place about the future of gun control. Getting less attention is the fact that Florida is one of the thirty-four states that allows for the execution of the perpetrators of heinous crimes (Evans 1). With the shooter, Nikolas Cruz, being an adult, the death penalty is on the table. This has brought the debate over the death penalty, which has been going on for decades, back into the limelight. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has been around since the beginning of human civilization. Reserved for the most atrocious crimes, it …show more content…
Under Florida law, there are three considerations that can be used to justify the application of the death penalty to a person convicted of murder: creating a grave risk of death to many people, acting in a way that was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, and committing the act in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner. All twelve jurors must agree to the death penalty for it to be put into effect; if there is a single dissenter, the defendant receives a life sentence (Should Parkland Shooter get death penalty 1).
A convicted killer only needs to fulfill only one of these criteria to be considered for the death penalty; Cruz meets all three. He deliberately planned out an attack on a school that took the lives of seventeen people, fourteen of whom were children, before leaving the scene among the crowds of people fleeing from the carnage he created. From a legal standpoint, I can see where the justification for the death penalty is coming from. The guidelines are in place for a reason, and if they are ignored they lose their role as a deterrent for vicious crimes of this
With the recent events in Parkland, Florida being plastered on the news at all hours of the day, there are many discussions taking place about the future of gun control. Getting less attention is the fact that Florida is one of the thirty-four states that allows for the execution of the perpetrators of heinous crimes (Evans 1). With the shooter, Nikolas Cruz, being an adult, the death penalty is on the table. This has brought the debate over the death penalty, which has been going on for decades, back into the limelight. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has been around since the beginning of human civilization. Reserved for the most atrocious crimes, it …show more content…
Under Florida law, there are three considerations that can be used to justify the application of the death penalty to a person convicted of murder: creating a grave risk of death to many people, acting in a way that was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, and committing the act in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner. All twelve jurors must agree to the death penalty for it to be put into effect; if there is a single dissenter, the defendant receives a life sentence (Should Parkland Shooter get death penalty 1).
A convicted killer only needs to fulfill only one of these criteria to be considered for the death penalty; Cruz meets all three. He deliberately planned out an attack on a school that took the lives of seventeen people, fourteen of whom were children, before leaving the scene among the crowds of people fleeing from the carnage he created. From a legal standpoint, I can see where the justification for the death penalty is coming from. The guidelines are in place for a reason, and if they are ignored they lose their role as a deterrent for vicious crimes of this