The Death Penalty In America Summary

1439 Words 6 Pages
The United States of America was first founded on the beliefs of a new, better, and promising life. The American people sought to free themselves from the heavy hand of the British rule. Starting a country is similar to starting a business; rules and consequences need to be established. These rules and consequences are called the law and the justice system. Most people would claim our country thrives more than others, however our justice system still gets put under scrutiny and is judged by the citizens. At a certain point, the line between justifying the law and breaking the law blurs. The justice system is composed of many different parts; there are state systems and the federal system. The state courts cover civil cases which are when …show more content…
They are concerned that without murder rates will increase because the punishment that can scare people out of crime is gone. Another concern is the belief that people who are capable of killing mass amounts of innocent people no longer deserve to live their life. They believe they lost the right to their life as soon as they started taking others. Hugo Adam Bedau, author of the book Review: The Death Penalty in America and philosophy professor at Tuff University is also widely known for his writings on capital punishment. He speaks feely about his opinions on the touchy subject, “Most people have a natural fear of death- its a trait man have to think about what will happen before we act. If we don’t think about it consciously, we will think about it unconsciously. Think- if every murderer who killed someone died instantly, the homicide rate would be very low because no one likes to die” (Bedau, H., 1982). Bedau believes that capital punishment is needed in the United States justice system in order to keep the murder rates at bay. He believes the fear of death will prevent some from killing because of their own fears and that the death penalty does not cross the border line of what is …show more content…
Arizona. For this case, Miranda was charged with multiple counts of murder and kidnapping. However, he was released due to the poor treatment from the police officers. He was not informed of his rights. Miranda was not aware he should be given a lawyer if could not afford one and the right to not self-incriminate. Today, that is now a rule that officers must perform before questioning anyone taken in. The end goal of the officers was to arrest a dangerous man and get him off the street, but by not fulfilling a technicality that the man was released and free even after stating everything he was charged for was true. Laws and rules in our justice system are in place to make trials fair for everyone. People cannot be charged because of hate and vengeance, but to ensure justice for the crimes they have committed. Every citizen wants what is fair towards the people who have been harmed and for those who have done the harming. In the United States, it is an important belief that every citizen has the ability to have a lawyer with them through the trials no matter your social class, “While authorities are not required to relieve the accused of his poverty, they have the obligation not to take advantage of indigence in the administration of justice” (Paddock). Occasionally, as seen in the Miranda vs. Arizona case the line between was is acceptable

Related Documents