For centuries, people have been convicted of crimes and punished in several different ways. Punishments in the past have ranged from public embarrassments to being imprisoned, the punishment which has existed since the dawn of time and still in existence today is the punishment by death. This is called Capital Punishment or the death penalty and has always been the ultimate punishment for a person’s crime. It has been around for centuries but as times have evolved with us, so has our opinions of this judgement. For many years’ people have protested the punishment by death verdict. Others believe it is the only solution. This is cause for many controversies in this matter. Certain demographics agree with this punishment but then there are the
…show more content…
For example, there could be the case where a serial killer who murders multiple victims for their own gratification and when he is finally brought to justice has two options, either die or live the rest of his life in prison, he could be considered more harmful alive that if he was executed by that definition because he would still exist and if for some reason he escapes then he could harm other people. Even if it’s unlikely for that to happen, keeping this prisoner would cost thousands of dollars a year for this single prisoner as stated in an article by Michael Jacobson, “Although in 2010 it cost more than $31,000 to keep someone in prison for a year, the study also found a wide range in the cost of imprisonment: from $14,603 per inmate in Kentucky to $60,076 in New York” (Jacobson 1). Many will agree that it would be better to give him the death penalty than keep them alive. I do agree with the death penalty for various reasons. I believe if a person can commit such an evil act of violent behavior, such as murdering or abusing someone, then they should be given the death penalty. There is no place in the earth for people like that. It would only be a detriment to keep said person alive just to be locked up for the rest of their lives and cost the taxpayer thousands of dollars. On the other hand, due to the way the justice system works, there are many “Killers” that are actually innocent and are proven thus by DNA or other forensics after years after the crime. This is just cause to keep the prisoner alive but then this still causes controversy because of the previous statement. In the end there is a fine line between what is politically justified and what is
For example, there could be the case where a serial killer who murders multiple victims for their own gratification and when he is finally brought to justice has two options, either die or live the rest of his life in prison, he could be considered more harmful alive that if he was executed by that definition because he would still exist and if for some reason he escapes then he could harm other people. Even if it’s unlikely for that to happen, keeping this prisoner would cost thousands of dollars a year for this single prisoner as stated in an article by Michael Jacobson, “Although in 2010 it cost more than $31,000 to keep someone in prison for a year, the study also found a wide range in the cost of imprisonment: from $14,603 per inmate in Kentucky to $60,076 in New York” (Jacobson 1). Many will agree that it would be better to give him the death penalty than keep them alive. I do agree with the death penalty for various reasons. I believe if a person can commit such an evil act of violent behavior, such as murdering or abusing someone, then they should be given the death penalty. There is no place in the earth for people like that. It would only be a detriment to keep said person alive just to be locked up for the rest of their lives and cost the taxpayer thousands of dollars. On the other hand, due to the way the justice system works, there are many “Killers” that are actually innocent and are proven thus by DNA or other forensics after years after the crime. This is just cause to keep the prisoner alive but then this still causes controversy because of the previous statement. In the end there is a fine line between what is politically justified and what is