Is the Death Penalty fair, ethical, impartial or correct,
useful, convenient as a way of punishing those who commit the worst crimes? The
Death penalty is one of those issues that raises so much anger, rage,
resentment and hate as much as argumentation, contention, controversy, polemic,
altercation and debate. Putting another person to death, no matter what the
reasoning or cause is an absolute serious thing that cannot be taken casually.
Many believe that sentencing a murderer; rapist or a kidnapper to death is a
reasonable and necessary punishment in order to eradicate the worst criminals,
as well as to satisfy those who are seeking retribution. Others, however, believe
that the death penalty is an unnecessary punishment, believing that a life
sentence without the possibility of parole, as a better alternative for it is a
lot cheaper and not as expensive as sentencing someone to death.
I stand opposed to the death penalty. Some people argue that
a kidnapper, rapist or murderer who by definition has disregarded the life of
his or her victims should be dealt the Death Sentence if proven guilty and
rapidly put to Death so as to minimize the economic burden on society in general.
However, I believe that the death penalty is not handled properly and that
there are better alternatives to punish a criminal. Criminals should be
sentenced to life in prison for it is not as expensive. Sentencing someone to
death also carries the risk of executing people who have been wrongfully
accused. Some people in the past have been wrongfully executed despite being
innocent. Life in prison allows those who have been wrongfully convicted more
time to prove their innocence. Although many Americans believe that the death
penalty is a necessary punishment to those who have committed the worst of
crimes, I agree that the penalty should not be allowed for it only raises more
problems.
Word Count: 314
Word Count: 314
Hi Jorge -- I think your reviewers (in class on Wednesday) already said this, but your proposal is very well written! You follow the structure I asked for but you're able to make it your own, and I really like the way you make the conversation you're entering into clear.
ReplyDeleteOne question I have is about this idea that it's less expensive -- I know you found an article talking about it but I'm wondering what they were specifically talking about in terms of costs? It would seem to me that sentencing someone to, let's say, 50 years in prison, and them living out all 50 years in prison, would cost more, wouldn't it? (I don't know what that source of yours was specifically talking about, so I'm just posing this question for you to consider as a counter-argument.) People who are sentenced to prison get a lot of amenities -- health care, food, classes, etc. Are these things not as hefty on taxpayers than the death penalty?
Also (I'm continuing to play devil's advocate here), what about people who have committed heinous crimes, like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who is the alleged suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing that killed and injured many earlier last year? He's being tried very soon; what would you say to people who say someone like him, who killed innocent people in a planned attack, deserves to die?
Oh, and thank you for making the font a wee bit bigger :)
ReplyDelete