Throughout America 's history, the death sentence, known as capital punishment, has induced a sizable bulk of controversy in the judicial system. Capital punishment’s reputation of being unfair has provoked debates about the practicality of death as an effective deterrent to murder. Since its reinstatement in 1977, capital punishment’s trials have been fair regarding race, but unfair to male and economically disadvantaged offenders. Rather than re-abolishing an effective deterrent to murder, steps should be taken to improve the fairness of the trial process.
Public opinion on the death penalty has constantly changed due to negligent judges, biased courts, and sheer lack of evidence for sentencing. The first time the practicality of capital …show more content…
While perhaps more ethical, it is certainly not more effective. There are multiple cases in which life without parole did not hinder murderers from murdering or sometimes even remaining in prison. Murders can still murder in prison. In fact, from 1983-2002, an average of 31 per 100,000 people were annually murdered in prison.
One example of life without parole being ineffective was the imprisonment of Dawud Mu’Min. In 1973, Mu 'Min murdered a cab driver. He was captured and given a life sentence without parole. Later, he escaped prison and in 1988, he robbed and murdered a store keeper named Gladys Nopwasky. Mu 'Min was soon caught after his second homicide and given the death sentence. If Mu 'Min had received the death sentence after his first kill, he would have been unable to murder …show more content…
In 1995, Jesse and Bobbie were accused of the abduction and murder of Etta Ann Urdiales, the ex-wife of Bobbie 's husband. The siblings had separate and especially unfair trials. Jesse admitted to arranging and committing the abduction, but not committing the murder. At the same time, Bobbie admitted to the murder but, insisted it was involuntary manslaughter. According to both Jesse and Bobbie, Bobbie was holding a gun to Etta 's head, when she accidentally pulled the trigger, killing Etta instantly. Bobbie 's lawyers convinced the judge and jury her story was true and she was only sentenced to 10 years in prison for the involuntary manslaughter. Jesse on the other hand was not so lucky. Since Jesse had arranged the abduction and Etta died because of it, he was held responsible for her death and was executed. Bobbie should have been executed for Etta 's death, because she had the most to gain from the abduction. Etta was constantly trying to prehend child support money from Bobbie and her ex-husband. It is obvious that Jesse abducted Etta for Bobbie. Jesse and the court both made the same mistake of thinking woman would not purposely kill another. Their sexism led to the death of Jesse, and the true murderer 's inconsequential
Public opinion on the death penalty has constantly changed due to negligent judges, biased courts, and sheer lack of evidence for sentencing. The first time the practicality of capital …show more content…
While perhaps more ethical, it is certainly not more effective. There are multiple cases in which life without parole did not hinder murderers from murdering or sometimes even remaining in prison. Murders can still murder in prison. In fact, from 1983-2002, an average of 31 per 100,000 people were annually murdered in prison.
One example of life without parole being ineffective was the imprisonment of Dawud Mu’Min. In 1973, Mu 'Min murdered a cab driver. He was captured and given a life sentence without parole. Later, he escaped prison and in 1988, he robbed and murdered a store keeper named Gladys Nopwasky. Mu 'Min was soon caught after his second homicide and given the death sentence. If Mu 'Min had received the death sentence after his first kill, he would have been unable to murder …show more content…
In 1995, Jesse and Bobbie were accused of the abduction and murder of Etta Ann Urdiales, the ex-wife of Bobbie 's husband. The siblings had separate and especially unfair trials. Jesse admitted to arranging and committing the abduction, but not committing the murder. At the same time, Bobbie admitted to the murder but, insisted it was involuntary manslaughter. According to both Jesse and Bobbie, Bobbie was holding a gun to Etta 's head, when she accidentally pulled the trigger, killing Etta instantly. Bobbie 's lawyers convinced the judge and jury her story was true and she was only sentenced to 10 years in prison for the involuntary manslaughter. Jesse on the other hand was not so lucky. Since Jesse had arranged the abduction and Etta died because of it, he was held responsible for her death and was executed. Bobbie should have been executed for Etta 's death, because she had the most to gain from the abduction. Etta was constantly trying to prehend child support money from Bobbie and her ex-husband. It is obvious that Jesse abducted Etta for Bobbie. Jesse and the court both made the same mistake of thinking woman would not purposely kill another. Their sexism led to the death of Jesse, and the true murderer 's inconsequential