For millennia, humans have executed people as punishment for mild to severe crimes. Recently, in the United States, there has been a lot of controversy regarding whether the death penalty should be abolished or kept as a form of punishment. However, sentencing somebody to death is not the only form of punishment in response to crime. There are various questions regarding the issue: Does it decrease crime? If not abolished, what kind of crimes are deserving of the death penalty? If abolished, what kind of punishment could be delivered? Two experts argue why it should be abolished and why it should not be abolished and present a few alternatives and alterations to the regime to make it more agreeable. Abolishing the death penalty is moral and
…show more content…
In “5 ways to improve the U.S. Death Penalty” Blecker expresses his concern over keeping the death penalty but altering it in various and particular ways. He has 5 main points that include fitting the punishment to the crime, adopting another execution method, caring to not wrongfully convicting the innocent, altering prison life, and looking at the reason behind the crime. He argues that we should only penalize certain people for the death penalty and not everybody behind a murder. For example, those who are mass murderers, terrorists, sadistic serial killers, or hired assassins. However, the jury should consider the defendant 's reason behind the crime and try to humanize the defendant before arriving to a conclusion. In addition, he conveys concern on how sometimes criminals such as drug dealers have crimes that are weighed as heavily as murder, and that their crimes should not be so heavily penalized. He also points out that the victim should have a say behind the punishment if …show more content…
Both agree that maintaining the death penalty endangers the life of the guiltless. Blecker has a lot of expertise on the issue and offers 5 very strong and valid points. He probes the advantages of not abolishing the death row and the downside of doing so. He also offers alternative methods of handling the death penalty and advises new ways of running prisons and administering crimes. Scheck seems to speak a bit more for the innocent and focuses on how the lives of innocent people being wrongfully convicted is not worth the death penalty. He concentrates on the state of California and fails to broaden his argument when it comes to a nation. Thus, many of his points were not very valid or strong as they did not pertain to other states. He mentions how it is very costly in the state of California and how it deters as it compromises prisoners 26 years in the death row before being executed. However, this argument is specific to California and may be untrue for other states. Anyhow, he does make an excellent observation when he mentions that people’s opinion favors the death penalty less when offered the option of sentencing the criminal to life in prison without parole. Scheck, similar to Blecker, offers an alternative which is to waste the money put on the death penalty on innocence reforms to help those who are wrongfully convicted. After considering both Blecker and
In “5 ways to improve the U.S. Death Penalty” Blecker expresses his concern over keeping the death penalty but altering it in various and particular ways. He has 5 main points that include fitting the punishment to the crime, adopting another execution method, caring to not wrongfully convicting the innocent, altering prison life, and looking at the reason behind the crime. He argues that we should only penalize certain people for the death penalty and not everybody behind a murder. For example, those who are mass murderers, terrorists, sadistic serial killers, or hired assassins. However, the jury should consider the defendant 's reason behind the crime and try to humanize the defendant before arriving to a conclusion. In addition, he conveys concern on how sometimes criminals such as drug dealers have crimes that are weighed as heavily as murder, and that their crimes should not be so heavily penalized. He also points out that the victim should have a say behind the punishment if …show more content…
Both agree that maintaining the death penalty endangers the life of the guiltless. Blecker has a lot of expertise on the issue and offers 5 very strong and valid points. He probes the advantages of not abolishing the death row and the downside of doing so. He also offers alternative methods of handling the death penalty and advises new ways of running prisons and administering crimes. Scheck seems to speak a bit more for the innocent and focuses on how the lives of innocent people being wrongfully convicted is not worth the death penalty. He concentrates on the state of California and fails to broaden his argument when it comes to a nation. Thus, many of his points were not very valid or strong as they did not pertain to other states. He mentions how it is very costly in the state of California and how it deters as it compromises prisoners 26 years in the death row before being executed. However, this argument is specific to California and may be untrue for other states. Anyhow, he does make an excellent observation when he mentions that people’s opinion favors the death penalty less when offered the option of sentencing the criminal to life in prison without parole. Scheck, similar to Blecker, offers an alternative which is to waste the money put on the death penalty on innocence reforms to help those who are wrongfully convicted. After considering both Blecker and