Living in an air conditioned cell, getting three meals a day, getting an education if wanted, and getting to see their friends and family is the life of someone sentenced to life without parole (Carmical). People on the jury of a death penalty case should recognize that the death penalty is moral, a deterrent of crime, needed for specific crimes, and a way of saving lives. Therefore, capital punishment should remain legal.
Some crimes are horrific enough to call for the death penalty. Michael D Bradbury mentions some examples of severe crimes like an eight year old boy who was kidnapped, raped, and set on fire; a two year old girl that was molested, tortured, and strangled; and an old couple that were beaten to death during a robbery. Each …show more content…
However, who is to say that the prisoner would not end up killing someone in that prison, like the guard or another inmate? Also, the murderer could not have to serve his whole sentence, meaning a murderer would be back on the streets (“Statement”). Prosecutor Steven D. Stewart mentioned “Considering a defendant sentenced to ‘life imprisonment’ across the country actually serves less than 8 years in prison, it is a good bet that ‘life without parole’ will not have the same meaning intended as years go by.” Opponents of capital punishment also say that there is a possibility that an innocent person can be sentenced to death. However, on the jury there are twelve people, those twelve people study the case intently and determine if the crime committed is worthy of being a death penalty case. Therefore, there is a very slim chance that an innocent person can be convicted and sentenced to death (Carmical). Stewart also says “Nevertheless, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976 (“Statement”). Studies done in 2013 have shown that capital punishment has stopped three to eighteen murders; the death penalty saves innocent lives! (Muhlhausen) Death penalty cases are reviewed with great …show more content…
The idea that the criminals that receive capital punishment do not deserve to be executed is something that is widely debated because of the sanctity of life; however, the death penalty does not defy the sanctity of life because it is giving justice to the victims (Bradbury). The criminals that commit these heinous crimes do not deserve to be given anything other than justice. The abolitionist claim that it is not the states place to decide who should die and who should live, but why was the life of an innocent victim placed in the hands of a criminal. The criminal has no right to decide if someone should live or die the state does. The Roman Empire is credited with saying “Homo homini res sacra” or “Man is sacred to man.” The Roman Empire believed that life was sacred, but they would not hesitate to execute someone if they did not follow the laws against murder that the empire had set (Ernest van den
Some crimes are horrific enough to call for the death penalty. Michael D Bradbury mentions some examples of severe crimes like an eight year old boy who was kidnapped, raped, and set on fire; a two year old girl that was molested, tortured, and strangled; and an old couple that were beaten to death during a robbery. Each …show more content…
However, who is to say that the prisoner would not end up killing someone in that prison, like the guard or another inmate? Also, the murderer could not have to serve his whole sentence, meaning a murderer would be back on the streets (“Statement”). Prosecutor Steven D. Stewart mentioned “Considering a defendant sentenced to ‘life imprisonment’ across the country actually serves less than 8 years in prison, it is a good bet that ‘life without parole’ will not have the same meaning intended as years go by.” Opponents of capital punishment also say that there is a possibility that an innocent person can be sentenced to death. However, on the jury there are twelve people, those twelve people study the case intently and determine if the crime committed is worthy of being a death penalty case. Therefore, there is a very slim chance that an innocent person can be convicted and sentenced to death (Carmical). Stewart also says “Nevertheless, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976 (“Statement”). Studies done in 2013 have shown that capital punishment has stopped three to eighteen murders; the death penalty saves innocent lives! (Muhlhausen) Death penalty cases are reviewed with great …show more content…
The idea that the criminals that receive capital punishment do not deserve to be executed is something that is widely debated because of the sanctity of life; however, the death penalty does not defy the sanctity of life because it is giving justice to the victims (Bradbury). The criminals that commit these heinous crimes do not deserve to be given anything other than justice. The abolitionist claim that it is not the states place to decide who should die and who should live, but why was the life of an innocent victim placed in the hands of a criminal. The criminal has no right to decide if someone should live or die the state does. The Roman Empire is credited with saying “Homo homini res sacra” or “Man is sacred to man.” The Roman Empire believed that life was sacred, but they would not hesitate to execute someone if they did not follow the laws against murder that the empire had set (Ernest van den