Crime

Lee Harvey Oswald had a rough childhood. Lee was born on October 18, 1935 in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. His father’s name was Robert Oswald jr. his mother’s name was Marguerite Oswald. His father died before he was born. After he was born, his mother remarried and moved to New York City.

While in New York, Lee began an interest in reading. After a few years in the city of New York, he moved back to New Orleans. Nobody really liked or cared about Lee, so he spent time reading throughout his childhood.

Oswald is known for assassinating President John F. Kennedy. This happened in 1963, a year after he had left the Soviet Union. This was unexpected and created controversy around the country. This was a weird assassination because two days after Oswald shot Kennedy, Oswald was shot too by Jack Ruby.

Jack Ruby said he killed Oswald because he was angry, but there are too many conspiracies about why Lee Harvey Oswald was killed and if there was some another shooter. There were three shots fired so it could have been possible.

Oswald does not have many other accomplishments because he did not live a full life. He died at the age of twenty eight. Before he died though, he joined the marines. He dropped out of high school to do so. It has been said Oswald had an accurate shot, so that explains how he did hit the president in the head.

He did not serve full time in the marines because he did have to leave the marines because he had illegal guns in his possession. Also, Lee was not just someone who had nothing to live for. He had a wife and a daughter who he left behind after shooting and killing the president.

Lee Harvey Oswald was interested in communism. That was part of the reason why he shot the president. Lee attempted many times to leave America. After leaving the marines, he tried moving to the Soviet Union. After a few years of trying to get in, the Soviet Union let him in.

He lived there for 3 years and also married Marina Prusakova. He moved back to America because life was not good for him there, but while in America he supported Cuba and was against making Cuba a threat to America. Eventually he just got fed up of living in America and killed JFK.

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a terrible day for America. It was bad for the time because the Soviet Union was becoming a bigger threat every day and having the president killed was not very good. People are still to this day saying the assassination was set up by more than just Lee Harvey Oswald but others disagree. It is sketchy that Lee was killed, and that a government official was shot too, but that does not really matter anymore.

Lee Harvey Oswald will probably forever be a historical figure forever remembered in America, but not for a good reason.

The dictionary defines the word corruption as an impureness that offers or accepts bribes and bad influence (Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English pg. 193). Throughout life, people meet various ways of corruption; we can actually see this through the government and its leaders. Corruption is some type of dishonesty and fraud. This type of action affects people in various ways. We see several ways this word is actually reflected in Fitzgerald+s novel, The Great Gatsby.

Throughout the novel, we read about a mysterious man who lives in East Egg and has just become rich. He followed his dream of being wealthy and successful. Gatsby worked hard to achieve his dream; he even was forced to make several illegal moves. He came from a very poor and humble past, not from a prosperous family.

Gatsby tried to follow his dream, his American dream. Jay wanted to earn enough money and be from a high status in order to be satisfied with himself and be able to get Daisy s love back. This American Dream is somewhat an aspiration to possess the ability to come from nothing, to be an absolute nobody, and build yourself up into a real somebody. In a way, to be able to create yourself, and your own version of reality; to turn yourself independent from anything that surrounds you. In life, many people dream about becoming this type of person, that is what is known as The American Dream.

I would say that Gatsby was corrupted by society, a society that placed such emphasis on wealth. This is some type of superficial world that allowed for such a huge division of classes to exist. There was a giant focus on money, and on class division. This influence is what led Gatsby to attain such wealth, most likely through illegal means (as said before). He did all of these things in order to get Daisy back. Gatsby was only trying to fit in, to become a part of the society of the 20’s. Of course, one that involved drinking, parties, affairs, money, etc.

James Gatz was a nobody, a poor, average person, but he made himself anew. He was reborn into Jay Gatsby, who was really his creation. He was a lie. Everything about him was fake and phony. Gatsby did not exist; he was actually a boy who came from a regular home, not from a rich past. Gatsby followed his dream and accomplished it. By this, we can see how society corrupted him. He wanted to become a person who would attract others and be noticed. He needed to call the attention.

Following the topic of corruption, we see some people who are corrupt in the story. Tom Buchanan is very bossy and egocentric. He is not a fair person; he likes putting people down and making them feel bad. Tom has his own lover (Myrtle) and disrespects his wife and friends. He criticized and punished his wife for being close to Gatsby, but he did not look at himself before judging–at his mistress. Tom s corruption intimidated people.

In this book, there were also some minor characters who seemed corrupt also. Jordan was another person who was a cheat. Just like Gatsby, she was probably not satisfied with herself. She liked bossing people around and hardly cared about others+ feelings. To begin with, she cheated on her first golf tournament, just like cheated on Nick by leaving him for another man. This shows her irresponsibility and life status. The other cheating character is Wolfsheim. Wolfsheim was a man who planned one of the finals in a World Series.

There are a lot of hypocrites and corrupt people in the world. In The Great Gatsby, we see how there is an exploration of the American Dream as it exists in a corrupt society. The American Dream itself is somehow corrupting since it puts pressure on people to do things that can really get out of hand and bring out bad consequences. Corruption affects the lives of people, it affects the people accomplishing their dreams and the way they can live.

The death penalty, also referred to as capital punishment, has been abolished in Canada but still exists in a few American states. I disagree with the death penalty for several reasons. My first reason is I find it extremely inhumane to take someone s life in order to demonstrate the power of the law. Another reason for my disapproval of the death penalty is the amount of money that it takes to put someone to death, as it would cost the same to keep an inmate in jail for life. My third and final reason, is the guilty conscience that is placed on everyone that must be involved with the execution.

In the early days societies were based on a simple code of law “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Today, now that our society has become more advanced, we don t function by this ancient code of punishment. For example,we do not rape the rapist s daughter, we don t kidnap the kidnapper s children, so why would we want to lower ourselves to the level of the killer and kill the killer. Society by now must realize that two wrongs certainly do not make a right.

Some thought that if we do execute the killer, it will deter others from committing such a terrible crime. However, murder rates in Canada have remained the same and there is no significant difference when comparisons are made of those States who still have the death penalty. Prior to putting someone to death, the accused criminal s lawyer will attempt several appeals to the courts in order to lengthen the amount of time he has to live. These appeals take up an abundance of court time and cost the public millions of dollars. With the cost of these appeals, it would cost the same amount to keep the same inmate in jail for a life term.

Would it not be better for the inmate to  maybe get an education or be given the chance to rehabilitate, rather than be strapped to a chair and killed? I personally would rather see the inmate suffer in prison and have nothing to look forward to rather than letting the government put the criminal out of their misery. To sentence someone to death takes one trial but to actually get someone executed could take a dozen trials. The question must be asked, why do we bother with this lengthy and costly process when we could sentence people to life in prison, at the same cost?

Another issue is what if a person has been convicted and sentenced to death, and later new evidence comes out of nowhere that proves the convict is actually innocent of all charges. How do you pay back this poor person s family? The death penalty is so final, and it cannot bring a life back, no matter what the circumstances are. In conclusion, I feel that the death penalty should be abolished in the states that are currently using it.

It is a inhumane form of punishment and has a very costly appeals process attached to it. Also carrying out the killing of someone leaves  xtremely deep emotional scars that do not go away overnight. People who witness the killing are probably scarred for life, plagued with nightmares and they will never forget the face on the accused as he was receiving his punishment. By taking someone s life, you too have become a “killer” no matter what the circumstances. I simply believe it isn t right.

The death penalty is a death sentence by the state upon a person as punishment for crime(s) committed. Death penalty is an issue that has generated a lot of heated debate on whether it should be abolished or not. This essay will document different issues surrounding the death penalty.

Personally, I do not support the death penalty. To start with, two wrongs do not make a right. There is no justification in killing a person who has committed a crime. As human beings, we have some privileges, but the issue of whether the lives of others belong to us is a rhetorical one that we need to answer. No person should have power over another person’s life. The death penalty raises questions on morality issues. It is not a means of dealing with crimes as it is also a violation of religious beliefs. The death penalty is intrinsic in nature; it is irreversible. Therefore, I always feel that the death penalty should be abolished altogether.

The U.S. is the only western country that uses the death penalty, but this varies from state to state. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, 41 out of 50 states have had no executions or have averaged about 1 execution every year. For the other 9 states, 5 have had about two to three executions per year, while one (Texas) has averaged more than three executions per year.

In 2009, eleven states among them Colorado, Illinois, Washington, Texas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Montana, Connecticut, Maryland and Kansas had considered bills to abolish death penalty. Among these states, New Mexico abolished the death penalty, while Connecticut had voted to abolish it although the governor vetoed the bill later. The states of Colorado and Montana did see the bill being defeated in the second house. Most of these states cite costs of executing the death penalty as the reason why they want it to be abolished (Dieter).

The state of Texas leads with the number of executions by 474 since 1976 and it is followed by Virginia. In fact, Texas has the largest rate of executions per million people. The given reasons are that the state’s supply of sodium thiopental had expired. The high number of executions in Texas may be because of the state’s appellate judges who get elected and thus may want to serve according to the pleasures of the public. Lack of a public defender in Texas may also have contributed to the high number of executions (Walpin).

Arguments for Death Penalty

Some people have always argued for the death penalty postulating that it will prevent future crimes (especially murders). They assert that the death penalty will deter would-be criminals from any unlawful action. To prevent future murders, they feel that the strongest punishment should be used; death penalty. The argument is that millions of people will be killed, if justice does not flow and crime rates will increase, if there seems to be a lot of leniency for criminals (Arguments for and against the death penalty).

Arguments against the Death Penalty

The first argument is that the death penalty does not rehabilitate the victim; he/she is already dead and nothing can bring him/her back. Another argument is that the death penalty has failed as a deterrent against potential crimes. The penalty has neither discouraged crimes as strong evidence suggests. Another reason why the death penalty should be abolished is the conviction of innocent people’s argument. Innocent people have been convicted and the death penalty of these innocent people makes a miscarriage of justice, as it is an irrevocable exercise. A suspect can stay in prison for a very long time, because of being suspected to have committed a crime of which he/she may be innocent before being released (Arguments for and against the death penalty).

Since the formation of the United States, the government has used the death penalty to execute more than 13,000 people. Public outcries caused the practice to come to a near halt in the late 60’s. With the case of Furman v. Georgia in 1972, the Supreme court ruled that the state s laws for applying the death penalty were arbitrary, making them violations of the Eighth (cruel and unusual punishment) and Fourteenth (equal protection) Amendments. However in 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court said that as long as it was not arbitrary, capital punishment was not cruel, and was therefore legal (Litardo).

Today, 38 states have the death penalty (Worsnop). The death penalty is still as inappropriate as it was in 1972 because it is discriminatory, cruel, immoral, and does not achieve the goals it was created to achieve. One reason the death penalty should be stopped is that it is discriminatory. A report by the federal government s General Accounting Office found evidence of racial disparity in the sentencing and imposing of the death penalty. Professor David Baldus examined the sentences in 2,500 homicides in Georgia in the 1970’s. He calculated that a person was 4.3 times more likely to receive capital punishment for killing a white person than for killing a black person. The Stanford Law Review published similar findings for Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Virginia (ACLU).

Besides the discrimination against blacks there is a discrimination against the poor. There are few, if any, rich inmates on death row. The reason for this is, according to many, because rich people can afford better, more expensive lawyers. Poor people have to endure the mistakes of their public defender forever. True, there are some decent public defenders, but the chances of getting a competent lawyer are slim because of the plethora of cases entering the court (Worsnop).

The Eighth Amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishments. It is hard to imagine a more cruel and unusual punishment than the death penalty. There is always some amount of pain in each of the murders, and many murders are botched. Hanging is still practiced in some states. If the rope is too short or too long, it can either gradually strangle or rip the head of the victim off (ACLU). Electrocution was once again proven cruel recently in Florida. There, the mask covering Pedro Medina s face during his electrocution burst into flames (Navarro).

In a gas chamber, it may take several minutes for the victim to become unconscious. His face may turn purple and he might drool. A description of the practices administered by a firing squad alone make it sound cruel. The victim is masked and five people take shots at him. One of them shoots blanks. By a lethal injection, as one federal judge noted, a small mistake in the dosage can cause tremendous pain for the victim. In Texas there have been three such cases since 1983. In one it took 24 minutes for the person to die. (ACLU). Clearly, this is cruel and unusual.

Another argument against capital punishment is that we don t have a right to kill people. Even though we believe that punishments should fit the crimes committed, there is a limit to how far this should go. No one would deny that it doesn t make sense to rape a rapist, and that it is equally pointless to set the house of an arsonist on fire. People can see the pointlessness of this because we are stooping to the level of the criminal.

Why, then, is it so hard for people to understand that this is exactly what we are doing in the case of a murderer? We are teaching that it may be okay to kill people. The U.S. should not be transmitting this message to its citizens (ACLU). While some may argue that for the sake of the family of the victim we should kill the murderer, they are quick to forget that the murderer has a family too. His family did nothing wrong. And, while it may be too late to stop the pain of the family of the victim there is a way to diminish the anguish of the murderers family (Litardo).

The way, of course, is a sentence of life imprisonment. For some, this punishment may seem too lenient. Why should the prisoner be allowed to live in conditions which may be better than his previous ones, get all the books he Il ever need from the prison library, and exercise in the prison gym? The answer to that is that the prisoner will have to live every day of his life knowing that because of the crime he committed he will die in jail. All of the reading and workouts in the gym will never take that away. There are two main refutations death penalty supporters may have to the argument I have written so far. Both come from a lack of knowledge of the facts.

The first is that it wastes more tax payer money to keep the prisoner alive than to kill him. The fact is that this is not true. With the appeals process and the long waiting time for executions included, it costs between two and three million dollars per execution. If the prisoner were to get a life sentence, the appeals could be cut, and the money saved could go towards the family of the victim, and to programs to help stop these crimes. This assistance would be more beneficial to the victims families than revenge (Litardo). The other belief of many death penalty supporters is that a severe punishment like death will deter many would-be criminals who d be afraid of being killed if caught.

According to a research poll by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, the death penalty was considered one of the least cost effective ways of reducing crime (Worsnop). This is believed to be because many crimes are committed in the heat of passion or rage, or while intoxicated. The other crimes are committed by professionals who believe they will not be caught. Some studies even indicate that the crime rate increases because of the death penalty.

In Louisiana, after eight people were executed in 1987, the crime rate in New Orleans rose 16.9%. States that don t use the death penalty have lower crime rates than states that do (Litardo). Finally, although there are many more arguments against the death penalty, I d like to present one very strong one. Not many death penalty defenders would be willing to pull the switch themselves. Deep down, this could very well be because they feel that it is immoral to kill anyone. If it isn t moral enough for themselves, how could they suggest it for the American people?

The director of the W.E. Dubois Institute of Afro-American research at Harvard, Professor Henry Gates, Jr. believes that history is merely “a chronicle of formerly acceptable outrage [and] that sooner or later capital punishment, too, will turn up on that chronicle of outrages.” In American society, support for capital punishment varies widely and is a highly contentious political issue fraught with differing philosophies and emotions.

Nevertheless the pursuit of justice demands that we as a society demonstrate a respect for life by showing how strongly society reacts to the most heinous crimes, which accordingly reveals society’s respect for life. Advocates for the abolition of capital punishment support their claims through ethically outrageous philosophies and the misrepresentation of facts. The prudent use of the death penalty can emphasize, as no other penalty can, that heinous criminals are responsible for their own actions and that the deliberate, willful taking of innocent life is the most abhorrent of all crimes precisely because the right to life is the most precious of all rights.

One of the central arguments in the opposition to capital punishment is the assertion that the death penalty is an inherently cruel and unusual punishment thus being both moral unacceptable and against the Constitution. In Thomas R. Eddlem’s article “Ten Anti-Death Penalty Fallacies” he cites the American Civil Liberties Union as stating, “Capital punishment, the ultimate denial of civil liberties, is a costly, irreversible and barbaric practice, the epitome of cruel and unusual punishment” (1). The abolitionist reason that killing someone is inherently cruel and that a morally respectful and responsible society cannot justly condemn someone to a sentence that is intrinsically cruel.

In addition, anti-death penalty proponents also claim that the death penalty directly violates the Constitution that bans “cruel and unusual punishment” in the Eighth amendment. However, these conclusions are based on the assumption that capital punishment is meant to be vengeful and vindictive which is neither the basis nor the purpose of the death penalty.

Moreover, cruelty is defined as something disposed to inflict pain and suffering and inmates today are executed by lethal injection, thus effectively eliminating the pain associated with being put to death. While some may argue that the mental anguish that a criminal may face just prior to death is cruel, one must agree that the mental anguish they may suffer is justly deserved; stemming only from their guilt for their actions, for which they are being held responsible. Accordingly, one can recognize the misleading reasoning that proponents for the abolition of capital punishment use.

A significant component of the reasoning against taking a convicted murder’s life is because it violates their natural rights; however, this reasoning is clearly a perversion of philosophy. Abolitionists argue that even convicted felons are guaranteed the right to life and that taking their life is morally objectionable. Most felons lose various civil rights such as the loss of voting, purchasing of firearms, running for public office and several other rights. Therefore, when one takes the life of another, then don’t they forfeit their most precious civil liberty, their right to life?

The murder has, in effect unjustly and prematurely denied their victim their right to life, for that reason, is it not just to take from the murder what he has denied to another? Professor J. Budziszewki supports this line of reasoning in his article “Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice”, when he states that “Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done” (40). Accordingly, one can see that when a murder takes the life of an innocent person they have forfeit their right to life by denying it to another. Consequently, one can see that taking the life of a capital offender is not done unjustly, unreasonably nor with prejudice.

Abolitionists contend that taking the life of the murder does not restore the victim’s life however in spite of this, the death penalty is a necessary tool that reaffirms the sanctity of human life while assuring that convicted killers will never again prey upon others. Is it not more unjust to let another life be taken at the hands of someone who should have never been allowed to continue to live? As Jeff Jacoby from the Boston Globe reports in his article “The Abolitionists’ Cop Out” that “In one 17- month period, the US Department of Justice calculated in 1995, criminals released “under supervision” committed 13,200 murders and 200,000 other violent crimes (1).”

How many innocent deaths could have been prevented if felons already convicted of murder or other capital crimes were not released? The blame for these additional innocent victims rests upon the system that let the convicted felons continue to live and be released back into society. Subsequently, one can see that capital punishment is not only society’s way of validating life but also a punishment that further prevents violent acts.

Advocates for the elimination of capital punishment cite misleading evidence claiming that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent in addition to being more costly than life imprisonment. In his article, Mike Farrell cites “scientific” data from three different studies claiming that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent to crime (1). However, this supposed evidence is based on poor data created by the ineffectiveness of the justice system to carry out a capital punishment sentence.

Cases in which a person is sentenced to death may take many years due to stall tactics and various court appeals; therefore, most years in most states no one is executed. Due to this lack of consistency and variability there is not an effective capital punishment system throughout the country. This in turn creates insufficient and unreliable data. The poor proof creates a misleading impression that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent to crime.

Nonetheless, if we assume for the sake of the argument that it is not an effective deterrent it still does nothing to change the fact that the murder still deserves their just punishment. In addition, abolitionist attempt to cite figures suggesting that the cost of the death penalty is more to the taxpayer than life imprisonment. These figures are dubious at best and regardless of the price involved justice is not up for sale to the lowest bidder. Moreover, one realizes that these arguments against capital punishment are nothing more than well crafted propaganda intended to merely mislead others.

It is not the death penalty that cheapens life or makes the society that employs it barbaric. What is barbaric, as well as tragic and pitiful, is the thinking that fails to make the distinction between the lives of murders and the lives of their victims. If society fails to make the distinction without equivocation, then society is truly barbaric. Granted, it is not easy to condemn someone to death, and still less easy to carry out the sentence.

Executions are irrevocable and irreversible; to take away anyone’s life, even a brutal criminal’s, involves an assertion of moral certainty that would make many of us shudder. But shuddering or not, we have a duty to carry out. Our society has a duty to proclaim that murder is evil and will not be tolerated, and that we will punish the worst of crimes with the worst punishment, upholding our societies respect for life.

Works Cited

1. Budziszewki, J. “Death Penalty Information Center.” “Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice” http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/. 1 September 2005
2. Eddlem, Thomas R. “The New American.” www.thenewamerican.com. 1 September 2005. “Ten Anti-Death Penalty Fallacies”
3. Gates, Henry Jr. “Writing Logically, Thinking Critically.” New York: Pearson, 2004 Jacoby, Jeff. “The Abolitionists’ Cop Out.” Boston globe 28 September 2003 Mike Farrell. “Death Penalty Focus.” “Mike Farrel On Capital Punishment.” 3 September 2005 http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=main

Introduction

One of the most contentious issues in the modern world concerns the acceptability of the death penalty. The death penalty is still exercised in many areas as a punishment for heinous crimes especially murder. Communities from the Europe and North America embrace the death penalty as a suitable punishment methodology. However, pertinent issues concerning capital punishment are unlikely to be resolved soon due to the different justifications given by the different sides. Some religious groups have criticized capital punishment as inhuman and uncivilized act.

Basic argument against death penalty

Death penalty is an arguably harsh punishment as evident in the ideologies of religious communities such as the Christians. One of the explanations is that there is no offence, which warrants taking away the life of the offender. They argue that only God has the control over life and so the offenders should not be executed (Guernsey, 2010). The Christians further explain that God will punish those who implement the death penalty since it goes against the commandments. However, religions such as the Muslims still practice the death penalty. Most of the Islamic countries have adopted the religious justification of the death penalty consequently applying it as law. This has caused repeated argument between the Islamic countries such as Iran with the countries that abide more to Christianity (Walker, 2008).

The death penalty has been exercised in a manner that is not limited to religions only. Some countries such as United States are predominantly Christian but they still exercise the death penalty. In 2009, there were 52 executions in America which is a significant population considering that most of the citizens are Christians (Banner, 2002). However, the number of executions in relation to the population size indicates is not preferable in the country. Iran executed at least 388 in the same year and the population of Iran is far much less than that of United States.

Capital punishment is subject to immense criticism because it is irreversible (Bedau & Cassell, 2004). This is evident in the cases of innocent people killed in China and Saudi Arabia. Some offenders were killed; however, it was later discovered that their offences did not warrant death penalty. This necessitated criticism from Amnesty international and organizations that fight for human rights because the situation could not be reversed. It is rather obvious that reversing execution is impossible.

Death penalty has been subject to questions based on its effectiveness in controlling crimes. This is especially in the Islamic countries where Jihad is evident. The offenders face the punishment and view it as Jihad and so the executions have little impact in the decisions of offenders. The death penalty is continuously criticized since it enhances revenge from criminals (Pojman & Reiman, 1997). An example pertains to the increased cases of murder in states such as Georgia and Virginia even though the states continue to apply the death penalty. The criminal groups continued to kill their targeted enemies in revenge for the members of the groups executed.

There is also an argument that some of the offenders who face death penalty are innocent and their crimes do not warrant their deaths. Some crimes committed out of anger are interpreted as murder (Banner, 2002). The offenders may be unable to control their emotions and commit such crimes. Therefore, some critics view exercising death penalty as unfair to the offenders. In case of murders committed in crimes of passion, the offenders do not feel threatened by the death penalty. This nullifies the effectiveness of the death penalty thereby necessitating the importance of seeking alternative methods of reducing crime.

Basic arguments for death penalty

Although there is continued criticism on the effectiveness of capital punishment, it is viewed as an effective way of controlling crimes. Most of the countries where civil wars are persistent have adopted this as a control measure to reduce the otherwise massive deaths that usually occur (Guernsey, 2010). For example, the perpetrators of the civil war in Liberia were subject to the death penalty threats. Although external forces such as AU deployed armed forces, execution of the few perpetrators scared some political leaders and this helped to stop the war that would have led to more deaths.

Death penalty is satisfactory revenge for some people who equate the loss of life of the offender to that of the person whom he or she killed innocently (Walker, 2008). Those in support of the victims feel that the life of the offender that can serve as an ultimate pay for the loss they suffered. For this reason, the death penalty is preferred because it acts as compensation for the offender. However, this is not necessarily an equal pay because most of the crimes that are subject to capital punishment are devoid of suffering, which usually deters crime. This is because the loss of life is not equated to the suffering persistent in the society.

Conclusion

Death penalty has been in existence for a long time yet it is still not clear if it is the appropriate punishment for the related crimes. There is no concrete evidence showing whether applying the death penalty, has positive, or negative effect on the persistence of crimes. It is therefore important that proper research should be conducted to determine whether it should be allowed or not. People from different religions, political and societal sectors should be consulted and their opinions evaluated accordingly.