Death Penalty Punishment

Better Essays
The death penalty puts innocent lives in danger. Rarely, innocent people have been put on the death row for a homicide. Studies show that as of October 2015, the U.S. have executed over 1,414 individuals since 1976. 156 individuals have been exonerated from death row--that is, found to be innocent and released - since 1973. (death penalty.org) In other words, 1.1 in 10 prisoners in the death row are innocent. Some of them get reimbursed by suing the state government for putting their lives in danger, for wasting their time, and disrupt their families. Then again, if these people were executed before appeal, it is irreversible, and there is no way to reimburse their lives. For example, Carlos De Luna, a man found near a crime scene where a gas …show more content…
Inmates are granted to appeals that could take for over 30 years, and during those years it costs money to give them extra legal resources, attorneys, multiple trials, and special single celled death row prison. Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell of California revealed the breakdown of the amount on a death row inmate on their assessment of cost. They concluded that the cost of death penalty since 1978 have increased $4 billion. Of the $4 billion, $1.94 billion is for pre-trial and trial while $1 billion is for incarceration, and the rest on courts of appeal. The authors later said, “if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years.” This is a huge amount of money funded to a controversial policy. On top of that if an inmate is to be found innocent, the government will have to compensate. There are other immediate issues that affect a more people and could be solved. For instance, it could build a school and give rise to the people that are suffering, or build a hospital and help people without insurance instead of funding it to kill a prisoner. People pay their taxes for a collective goods of the society. Nevertheless, executing a criminal cannot collectively provide for the society, and it is not worth to …show more content…
Many argue that keeping the life of a murderer is unjust for the life that is lost. These people have the ideology of “an eye for an eye”, since the criminal took a life, his life must be taken as well. Even though I agree that the criminal must pay for the crime, killing a murderer automatically makes you a murderer, yet the government claim that the execution is humane, so it cannot compare to murder. However, there is no humane way of executing a living person. You do not have to punish a criminal with the same crime. For instance, if a person robs you, the police do not rob him back. He will be sent to jail for the appropriate amount of time and pay the victim a retribution. The main reason people want the criminal to die is to take him away from the society. Locking him up will assure that he never gets back to the society. Some family members of the victim will want the criminal to die, yet it can never give them the victim back. Furthermore, taking the criminals lives away is letting them go easy. Leaving them in a cell alone lets their consciousness torture them for years. If becoming humane as the prosecutors’ execution method is suggested, there is nothing humane that allowing them to rehabilitate and live a better live in prison. Another essential point is that life without parole is reversible as supposed to death penalty. People support death penalty mainly because it deters

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    There is no room for vengeance and a revenge stance in our justice system. The arguing stance for the death penalty says it deters murders, but in reality, the death penalty just leads to another loss of human life - regardless of the murder being an execution. When somebody tortures another human being, the government does not decide to torture that person in return. It’s the same for a rapist; the government does not rape the rapist. So, why does the government decide to murder the murderer?…

    • 1393 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    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.…

    • 1122 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If somebody does not realize that going around murder people is incorrect, then I trust, that letting such people live is not only a great threat to the society, but also a great problem. Critic of the death penalty, Adam Belau, wrote, "Prevention by means of incapacitation occurs only if the executed…

    • 1259 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Once they are dead its over no mulligans, so it should be difficult to make this decision. Koch has a great quote where he says; “If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn 't exist, government wouldn 't function at all.” meaning that government his flawed at all levels and should not be trusted with life. The most important replay Koch gives is does the death penalty cheapen the cost of a life. The death penalty must be seen as the ultimate punishment and not throw around. Yes Koch says if you cannot measure the cost of a human life, but murder can be a ruthless crime, but to condemn another man to death is not only costing that man his life but the emotional weight on the judge jury and the…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I personally think that the Death Penalty is wrong because of its not right to kill why should it be right to kill someone else with the death penalty, by going that far with everything you midis well have a purge. If someone if accused with murder then that person should have to deal with a punishment that nobody wants to deal with and that is spending there life in prison looking up for life with nothing to see is walls and bars because killing the person who had done the kill is too easy of a punishment, it isn’t even a punishment. Legislative Branch: Death Penalty is wrong I understand punishment to people who do the wrong thing but to end their lives, the government should be able to subject criminals to the death penalty. The…

    • 1030 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Jesus Hernandez Is it acceptable in any case to kill a possible innocent human? Capital Punishment is the sentencing of a man or woman to death instead of him or her serving time in a penitentiary for committing a serious crime like murder. This is an issue everyone should be concerned about because taking away someone’s life is serious and cannot be undone. This issue cannot be focused on by only the government because the citizens need to know how it is affecting them as well. Families could lose loved ones due to a death sentence, and the taxpayers have to pay out of their own pockets for the cost of the execution.…

    • 2346 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    How can we say justice is served by executing someone’s beloved? A man may take another man’s life but who are we to say he should be beheaded? Life is not fair, no one wants to see a killer living when our loved ones are gone but we must not forget that they are also someone’s beloved. No man should have the power to decide another man’s life or death since everyone is equal. Execution is not only cruel but can also lead to killing an innocent man, and it costs millions for one death penalty and sometimes put innocent’s life at risk, more importantly there is no taking back once it is done.…

    • 1570 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    People argue that the criminal deserves the pain and torture before they die because of the crime they committed. A human should not be tortured or put through any sort of physical pain for what they have done. Even the guilty have a right for life. To learn from mistakes and make a better life for themselves. Nick Gillespie states, “ The state’s first role—and arguably its only one—is protecting the lives and property of its citizens” (“Get Rid of the Death Penalty”).…

    • 1142 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The topic of death penalty is very controversial, there are some who strongly believe it should be allowed and some who believe it should be abolished. For both reasons there is research that supports each opinion. The death penalty has killed innocent wrongfully convicted people and should not be allowed in any part of the world because killing someone for a crime they committed is not called justice, it is called revenge. There are there other alternatives, ending a person’s life is not the solution, instead of the capital punishment they should be getting life in prison without parole. Abolishing the death penalty does not mean we are not going to punish the criminal; it only means we are doing it in a way that will not disrespect the life of a human.…

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I also think we should abolish the death penalty because killing a human for what they did wrong such as murder, will not solve the problem or give the victim permanent relief, it will only be temporary and we are just as wrong as them when they committed the crime. Nathanson states that this does not solve the problem at all because we are still acting barbarically to those who are guilty of a barbaric crime. If we continue to punish the wrongdoers with the same violent actions, we are setting an example that violence is the answer to our problems and that it is morally right. That is not what should be done we should not have to punish the wrongdoer with a severe punishment like the death penalty to get our point across. Like Nathanson says we should want the state to set the right example, and the only violence that is…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays