The Capital Punishment: The Dilemmas Of The Death Penalty

1312 Words 6 Pages
The Capital Punishment is a very questionable controversy among numerous people. In this world there is a difference when comparing malicious and benevolent people. Jonathon Kay proclaims, “rational thinkers don’t murder 2 year-old children. They do it because they are evil. And that is why we long to see these criminals die… repaying blood with blood” (Kay). The Death Penalty dictates whether or not criminals who have committed terrible crimes deserve the right to live. This issue is serious and it matters because it decides the fate and course of a human life. The Capital Punishment should still be intact because it is appropriate punishment for the inappropriate crimes, lowers number of criminals, and brings closure to victim’s relatives. …show more content…
The “taxpayers have spent more than four billion dollars on capital punishment since 1978” (Banks). The death penalty is asking too much of taxpayers because paying money to kill people is unlawful. It may violate the morals of many people because they are aiding the killing of people by helping to pay for it. A “sentence to life without parole would be more honest and less expensive. We’ve created a system that’s not just unconstitutional arbitrary” (Banks). By spending a bunch of money through taxpayers, people lose money and are not able to use it for any other situations in their life. People’s money is being used to put others to death, so what makes them better than the criminals.
The Capital Punishment is an extremely serious matter because it deciphers whether or not a person lives or dies. The pros to the Death Penalty are it is deserved punishment, brings closure, and it keeps criminals off the streets. The cons are innocent people can be brought to death, racial discrimination, and paying for death is both cost ineffective and unlawful. Maybe in the nearby future or later on, the question on whether or not the Capital Punishment’s place should be in

Related Documents