What Is The Death Penalty Inhumane

1122 Words 4 Pages
In discussions of capital punishment, one controversial issue has been whether or not the death penalty benefits the states that enforce capital punishment. On the one hand, those who oppose the death penalty argues that capital punishment is inhumane and should not be used to end someone’s life. On the other hand, those in favor of capital punishment firmly believe that the death penalty is the only way to make the world just. My own view is: the death penalty gives life value and justice; it helps reduce prison crowding, and ensures public safety. Americans today tend to believe that the death penalty is inhumane and if the government kills someone they are decreasing the value of life. However, such accusations are simply not true. …show more content…
Many people who are opposed to capital punishment assume that this is not a big issue, but those people would be wrong. According to, Time magazine article writer, Adam Cohen, more and more prisons are becoming over crowded and are leading to more riots, more inmate on inmate physical contact, and more sexual abuse (Time article Cohen). Because of the lack of privacy and the lack of space the inmates are irritated and the guards are having a harder time keeping everything in order. The government has yet to come up with a solution for dealing with such high rates of over population, but I believe we already have a solution. If we enforced the death penalty there wouldn’t be as many prisoners in prison; they would be executed. Here many people who despise the death penalty would probably object that capital punishment is not the moral solution to such a problem. Regardless, we need a solution and we need it fast. The death penalty can help the prisons from becoming too full. Just letting prisoners out isn’t helping the cause because most prisoners go back to prison with in three years or so anyways. According to Crime In America, an online newspaper, “Fifty-two percent of the offenders were returned to prison for “serious” crimes and technical violations (they didn’t follow the rules of their release after prison)” (CrimeinAmerica.Net). That means over half the inmates that get out of prison go back …show more content…
But a number of people are still against the death penalty for moral reasons, even though, it would bring them safety. In Stanley Marcus’s article, “Public Safety Requires the Death Penalty” Marcus questions convicted murderers about their crimes, “they had no hesitation in killing again and again because they were subject to no more severe punishment than if they were convicted of robbery - and often even less.” (New York Times Article Marcus). We need capital punishment to frighten criminals and to get rid of them when they do wrong. Clearly, these criminals have no morals about killing, so why should we risk our safety to keep them alive? The convicted killers even admitted that they had no hesitation in killing the first time and they would have no hesitation killing again. We need to consider our safety and stop these killers from committing more murders. Many people who are against the death penalty, of course, may want to question whether there is an alternative way to protect society without the use of capital punishment. Such as, putting the criminals in prison for life. Though I concede that putting away the felons can help, I still insist that murderers get the death penalty because it is the only way to 100% guarantee that they will never kill again. The New York Times writer, Stanley Marcus, makes a great point by

Related Documents

Related Topics