Once there was a man who hated his neighbor. Everyday there would be music blasting from the neighbor's house that disturbed the man trying to work. He had asked his neighbor to stop the noise politely many times, but the noise persisted. One day the man snapped and took one of the speakers and smashed it on the head of the neighbor. There is no more noise to worry about now. The man lies on his bed on death row. Should this man die for what he did? There are two ways for this man to go. He can either be put in prison for life with or without parole or sentenced to death.
[...] There isn't enough evidence to prove that the death penalty is absolutely necessary. There has to be another way to make a murderer pay for his/her crimes. Incarceration in the long run does nothing. The threat of being put to death for a murder doesn't stop people from killing or raping individuals. It isn't right to kill another human being even if that person had taken hundreds of lives. A person who takes another person's life should learn their lesson through imprisonment, religion, weekly meetings with clergy members, and the family and friends of the victim. [...]
[...] Even though this story is not true, the situation is very real. Over the years, DNA tests have been run on inmates who were put to death or still on death row. Many of them were innocent. The ones who were still living were only to be freed decades later for the horrible crimes they were convicted of (Ballard 15). The innocent are more at a risk than the guilty to be put on death row. Many of the guilty defendants work out some kind of plea bargain with a district attorney to try to avoid the death penalty. [...]
[...] Taking anger out on a person who hurt someone is not going to solve the problem. Crimes are committed by the forces inside of a person, making retribution unacceptable (Lund 122). Is capital punishment fair? It has been observed that the death penalty has been used more often in the south than the north. As Stuart Banner says, “During and after the slave era, the death penalty was used to reinforce the political subordination of the black population” (Lund 122). [...]
[...] Even though it is thought that racial discrimination is over, the death penalty seems to favor one side over the other. A black man who killed a white man is more likely to receive the death penalty over a white man who killed a black man. A woman who has killed a man is less likely, all together, to get the death penalty (Lund 122). There is another problem with the death penalty besides racial and gender matters. A person who is sentenced to die may not be guilty at all. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee