Death Penalty

The death penalty is a topic dealing with ethics, a set of moral principles or values. This issue is constantly filled with mix feelings, attitudes, and the beliefs of individuals from all aspects of life. Some are for the death penalty while others argue against it. No matter how the world progresses there will never be a final argument or resolution to the understanding, acknowledgement, or ending to the right or wrong of the death penalty. Outline A.

What is the death penalty, the origination and history behind it? Capital Punishment, or execution, the sentence of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense committed.  Eighteenth century B. C. first established death penalty laws.Eighteen forty six William Kemmler was the first person executed by electrocution. B. Why people agree with the death penalty. The more tolerable someone perceives imprisonment to be, the less deterrent effect life in prison will have. Capital Punishment has a strong deterrent effect, on average each execution results eighteen fewer murders. It gives closure to the victim’s families who have suffered so much. Why people disagree with the death penalty.Is capital punishment moral? Some believe it is not. Many people believe that a majority of inmates on death row have not been given due process.  Because many people believe that the death penalty is cruel it is a violation of the eighth amendment.

Work Cited

1. www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/part-i-history-deathpenalty
2. http://www. allsands. com? Kids/Education/capitalpunishe_xnj_gn. htm
3. http://www. cjif. org/deathpenalty/DPDETTERENCE. htm

The death penalty has been a controversial issue for many years. It was established centuries ago and has been accepted by society. It was put into place to punish those who had committed an offense against laws of the institution that was in place at the time. Within our society the death penalty has been associated with several symbols. ‘An eye for an eye,’ is a symbol that has come to be the representation of the death penalty; which was one of the original ideas behind it. Times have changed and the death penalty is now used for more serious offenses and considered to be a deterrence.

The death penalty should be abolished because it does not effectively deter crime. I will be discussing the lack of deterrence on the death penalty through the symbolic interactionism perspective. There should be no doubt afterwards that the death penalty is not a deterrence. There have been many studies done by criminologists on the deterrence effect and the death penalty. Many researchers have been able to show through their studies that there is a deterrence while others have shown that there is a lack of it.

Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock, in Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists, analyze the studies that have been previously conducted by criminologist researchers and find many flaws within these studies. In order to support their theory, Radelet and Lacock, conduct a study of their own that questions the deterrence effect. Their study is based on a 2008 questionnaire from the top criminologists of the world; which consists of 12 questions that are based on the death penalty and deterrence.

This study is similar to the one done previously by Michael Radelet and Ronald Akers in 1996; which also consisted of the leading criminologists of the world and their expertise on the matter. Having the death penalty as a punishment does not necessarily mean that it will deter people from committing murder. Based on research by Benjamin Tyree, in Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime? , he introduces a study that is based on the analysis of two distinct hypotheses that answer this question.

The first hypothesis relates to whether states that have the death penalty will have lower crimes punishable by death in contrast to states that do not have the death penalty. The second hypothesis relates to whether states with most executions will have fewer crimes punishable by death in contrast to states that have less frequent executions. In order to effectively make an accurate conclusion of his findings, Tyree uses two separate case studies for each hypothesis. The statistics of his analysis conclude that the hypotheses that are used in this study are not those expected.

Since the time that the death penalty was enacted we have changed the way it is enforced because society has changed the crimes that are punishable by death. Society has created a reality where values and morals are instilled in us throughout the course of our lives so that we could interact with each other in an ethical manner. According to society there are certain things that are considered to be evil and wrong; therefore society is the one that re-creates the social change that is necessary. When one breaks the law, it is a symbol of straying from the norm.

We should not let our beliefs cloud our judgment about the death penalty and the deterrence effect that was created by society. In fact, we should leave the deterrence theory to the experts. “88. 2% of the polled criminologists do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent, up slightly from 83. 6% in 1996” (Lacock and Radelet, 2009, p. 501). Many of us would admit that if someone that we cared about was murdered the first thing that comes to mind would be the death penalty; a symbol of revenge.

You would assume then that before committing murder the symbol that is represented by the death penalty would come to one’s mind and deter them accomplishing that. Another symbol that is represented by the death penalty would be fear; the fear of having our own life taken away because that is what is most sacred to most of us. There are more states that currently enforce the death penalty than those that do not. According to Lacock and Radelet (2009) 87% of the criminologists concluded that abolishing the death penalty in a given state would affect that state’s homicide rate (p. 501).

These responses of the leading criminologists go hand and hand with the results based on statistics shown by Tyree. When there are states that enforce the death penalty as a society we would assume that there would be fewer crimes punishable by death according to the reasons that our society created the death penalty for; which is deterrence. In the first case Tyree uses “The crime rates of Texas, the most frequent user of the death penalty, and Michigan, which does not have the death penalty statute, were compared. Using the crime rates for these two states, measuring every five years from 1970-2000” (Tyree, 2007, p. ).

These statistics can be used to analyze the number of murder rates between states that have the death penalty and those that do not. This will allow us to get a perspective of whether or not there is a deterrent effect. This is a good way to see actual numbers of deaths that have been committed in each state. “The murder rates per 100,000 inhabitants for the state of Michigan in 1980 were 10. 2 and in the state of Texas were 16. 9. In 1990, the murder rates for Texas were 14. 1 and in Michigan were 10. 4. ” (Tyree, 2007, p. 8).

These are certainly statistics that society would not think would correlate with the death penalty based on the perception that it is effective. Tyree (2007) continues to state that the other statistics show that in Texas the murder rates are higher than those in Michigan (p. 8). Based on these two states we can assume that having the death penalty does not deter people from committing murder, but it does not give us enough information to come to a stable conclusion. In order to avoid any assumptions that the death penalty will change someone’s mind before committing a crime that is punishable by crime, we need more substantial results.

The second test was performed using Virginia, who follows Texas in number of convicts executed since 1976, and Massachusetts, with no death penalty” (Tyree, 2007, p. 9). The relationship between these two states should give us a broader perspective as to whether the death penalty deters people from committing murder. According to the findings of these two states, “the murder rates per 100,000 inhabitants, for the state of Virginia in 1990 were 8. 8 and in the state of Massachusetts were four. In 2000, the murder rates for Virginia were 5. 7 and in the state of Massachusetts were two” (Tyree, 2007, p. 9).

This allows us to form a more accurate perspective of how the states that have the death penalty actually have a higher rate of murder in contrast to the states that do not have the death penalty. These findings are contrary to the belief system within our society that symbolizes the death penalty as a deterrent. The criminologists were “asked if they agreed that the empirical research shows that the death-penalty states have lower homicide rates than neighboring non-death penalty states. Conversely, 74. 1% of the 2008 experts believe the research shows that this assertion is false” (Lacock and Radelet, 2009, p. 01-502).

These criminologists are obviously aware of the research that has been carried out among the states and that is why they do not agree with the rates of homicide being lower. There should never be assumptions when it comes to giving expert opinions. The symbolic interactionism connects to the death penalty in the way that society functions within each other. If a murderer wants to commit a crime then they will do so without caring about what society thinks of them or of their ethics. They have their own belief system that influences their behavior and actions.

People are no longer afraid of the death penalty and these findings are the evidence to that. They tell us that the reality that has been created by society where the death penalty is not critical anymore needs to be reanalyzed. Politics also have ways of representing the death penalty as a symbol of power. Among the criminologists they were asked “if politicians support the death penalty as a symbolic way to show that they are tough on crime. Overall there was a strong agreement in with this statement in the 1996 and 2008 samples” (Lacock and Radelet, 2009, p. 02).

The symbols that the death penalty appears to be within our society, based on these findings, should not be of deterrence but rather of failure. There is no symbol within our society that correlates to the negative results of the death penalty. We value life and therefore the implications of someone taking that from us are punished to the extent of the law. Sometimes we make these laws without knowing if they are effective and that is the reason that we would like the deterrence effect to be a reality.

According to Tyree (2007), he created a second test to evaluate the deterrence effect by using the number of executions within states (p. 10). We must analyze the correlation between the time of sentencing and that of execution to determine if there is an actual impact on deterring criminals. “In 1996, 26. 9% of the respondents thought that shortening the time between sentence and execution would add to the death penalty’s deterrent effect. In 2008, only 12. 4% thought so” (Lacock and Radelet, 2009, p. 503). The statistics are not the only data that we can see so far that shows a distance between the death penalty and deterrence.

The criminologists can be seen as a justification to these findings. The second test “compared murder rates among states that often use their death penalty statutes and those who have a statute, but do not often utilize it” (Tyree, 2007, p. 11). This is a great opportunity to examine if when the death penalty is enforced crimes punishable by death will decrease. There is no point in having a statute in place if it is not going to be enforced; this should be the main reason to make people think twice before committing a crime.

Society is going to disregard the consequences of the offense because they know that if they break the law nothing will happen to them. Let’s take for example if a person knows that if they kill someone and their perception of the reality that they live in is that the death penalty is not going to be enforced, then the consequences according to society are not going to appear as severe. It’s almost as if they got away with murder. “The states of Montana, which executed two and Missouri which executed 61 between 1976 and 2004” (Tyree, 2007, p. 11) are used to represent his second study.

The executions that were done during this 28 year p don’t seem to be a whole lot when we think of how many people are actually on death row. The In this we would assume that social action needs to take place so that deterrence can become effective. One must also analyze the executions because if there were only two executions in Montana during that time period then one would assume that there was not a deterrent effect in contrary to the 61 executions that were carried out in Missouri. “In 1995, Missouri had about 11 murders and Montana had about 3 murders.

In 2000, Missouri had about 6 murders while Montana had about 2 murders” (Tyree, 2007, p. 11). These results show that the murder rate is higher in those states that carry out more executions than those that execute less frequently. The reality that we can see through these statistics is that there is no deterrence. In the following case study used, “the state of Oklahoma executed 75 and Pennsylvania which executed three. Oklahoma has maintained a higher murder rate than Pennsylvania in each year since 1976” (Tyree, 2007, p. 12).

This connects to symbolic interactionism once again because people are obviously not concerned when it comes to committing crimes that are punishable by the death penalty. The execution rate is not a factor to the individual when they break the law. They are not thinking of the death penalty or their interactions within society before they commit these crimes.

The interactions between the murderer and the consequences are obsolete. “Responses show that 18. 7% of those in the 1996 sample thought that increasing the frequency of executions would increase the overall deterrent effect, but only 8. % thought so in 2008” (Lacock and Radelet, 2009, p. 503), which we can conclude that the ethics among our society have not changed.

The results from the statistics and the criminologists are credible sources that should create a new perspective of the lack of deterrence of the death penalty. “The message is clear: few of America’s top criminologists believe that the threat or use of the death penalty can reduce homicide rates any more than long-term imprisonment” (Lacock and Radelet, 2009, p. 503). Many will continue to argue that the death penalty deters crime but I would have to argue to the contrary.

The statistics and the opinions of the experts can justify this. The possible solution to all this would be simply to remove the death penalty. It is obvious that the death penalty does not stop people from committing crimes. Although it is obvious that the correlation between the two is not there, we must now make a social change as to what will be effective. The death penalty is a failure when it comes to deterring people within our society and we need to once again reevaluate the death penalty; as it has been many times before.

One possibility that could be done to reevaluate the death penalty is abolishing it once again. The death penalty is not implemented enough so removing it would not make much difference. We must create a reality without the death penalty and focus on creating a society that is more effective on crime. Instead of wasting the money on the death penalty, we could use that money for more law enforcement, crime prevention programs, and most importantly education. Annotated Bibliography Lacock, T. L. , &Radelet, M. L. (2009). Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates?

The Views of Leading Criminologists. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 99 (2), 489-508. There have been previous studies done in regards to the deterrent effect on the death penalty. Many of these studies show that there is a deterrent effect when the death penalty is imposed. In this article the authors from the University of Colorado-Boulder criticize these researchers because they find many flaws in their studies. In order to support their theory that there is no deterrent effect on the death penalty Michael Radelet and Traci Lalock conduct a study based on a questionnaire.

They selected the world’s top Criminologists from Fellow in the American Society of Criminology (ASC); those who had won the highest award presented by ASC, or had been president of the ASC between 1997 and 2008. They were asked their expert opinion on this subject based on questions that were previously used in a study conducted in 1996 by Radelet and Akers. The results of the survey from the experts indicate that the death penalty will not deter people from committing murder; which were the same results from the 1996 study.

Based on the findings of this study the conclusion is that the death penalty is not a deterrent based on the expertise of these criminologists. Tyree, Benjamin S. , (2007). Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime? University of Richmond Law Journal Law Review, 41 (1), 1-17. There are many that might argue that the death penalty deters crime, however, in recent studies done this is not the case. A researcher at the University of Richmond conducted a study based on two hypotheses that will determine if the death penalty effectively deters crimes that are punishable by death.

The researcher, Benjamin Richmond, uses two different tests to examine these two hypotheses. Richmond uses in his first test the murder rates within two states that enforce the death penalty and two states that don’t enforce the death penalty. In his second test, Richmond uses the murder rates within two states that often execute their inmates in contrast to two states that seldom execute their inmates. He finds that the results of the hypotheses that were used are completely the opposite. The conclusion then, based on statistics, proved that the death penalty does not have a deterrent effect on crimes punishable by death.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Death Penalty I remember watching the movie Dead Man Walking; it was about this man named Matthew Poncelet who allegedly raped a girl and killed a teenage boy. Poncelet pleaded not guilty, but was convicted as a murderer and put on death row. He asked for several appeals stating that Carl Vitello, the man he was with at the time, was the one that should be at fault. Poncelet seems very convincing that it wasn’t him, but at the end, the courts had enough evidence to grant Poncelet the retribution of execution.

The movie has me questioning America’s justice system; what if someone was actually innocent? Is it right to kill someone as a consequence for their wrong doing? To some, it seems like the right thing to do. If someone breaks the rules you simply punish them. But how should we carry out these punishments? When eight-year-old Billy steals a candy bar from Seven Eleven, you can bet that one of the parents will deliver some whippings. In Texas, when I was in elementary school, I started a fight, and as a result I got sent to the principal’s office and received three licks with a paddle.

So where do we draw the line? At a higher level, what happens to me if I kill someone? Since the beginning of time, societies in almost every culture and background have used capital punishment or physical chastisement as a consequence for the killing of others. But, we shouldn’t be doing this anymore; life is too valuable. Even though some people have made mistakes in their lives, its time for the United States to free the judicial systems from their power to take peoples life’s as a consequence for people taking the life of another. In 1972, with the Furman v.

Georgia case, the Supreme Court recognized that capital punishment was indeed a roll of the dice, and as a consequence held that as practiced it violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause of the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. Justice Stewart declared that the death penalty was cruel because it is “wantonly and freakishly imposed,” and it was like “being struck by lightning” (Hull). Justice Douglas, agreed and stated that the death penalty was unusual because “it discriminates against someone by reason of his race, wealth, social position, or class” (Hull).

Justice Byron White, a man who favored more executions, agreed that he noticed, that among the hundreds of federal and state criminal cases that could have resulted in the death penalty, “only a handful of defendants were actually selected for execution” — making the system “so totally irrational as to be based on luck” (Hull). The decision removed power from the states to enforce the death penalty, and moved the 629 inmates off death row.

For a few years, the death penalty remained illegal because the Justices that were on the Supreme Court at the time concluded that executions violated the Eight and Fourteen Amendments, citing cruel and unusual punishment. However, with different terms, in 1976, the Supreme Court reversed itself with Gregg v. Georgia and reinstated the death penalty to state hands. Nevertheless, this is a prime example of how the Supreme Court can change laws and set precedents by the way they interpret our Amendments.

The Supreme Court is in place to dissect, and analyze the Constitution to decide what the Framers meant, and in 1972, the perspicacity of the Justices resulted in the most humane decision ever made; people where being deprived from life by serving life imprisonments instead of being executed. Since 1976, the United States has executed 1,295 people, and there are currently 3,189 people on death row (DPIC). But all murderers haven’t had the same fortune, because of Gregg v. Georgia, some states enforce the death penalty and others don’t. There are currently 33 states in the U. S. ho currently support and implement capital punishment, and 17 states who oppose. (DPIC). Murderers in non-capital punishment states can kill with the highest punishment being life in prison; but if that same murderer resided in another state, he would have the opportunity, depending on the case, to be sentenced to execution, via lethal injection. The problem here lies, that there is no consistency when it come to punishing the murderers. If a murderer lives in the U. S. the reprimands should remain the same for everyone; the penalties shouldn’t differ because what climate a killer prefers living in.

The laws that we have in place now, means that if I wanted to go on a killing spree, and I didn’t want to die because of it, I would simply move from a death penalty state to a free death penalty state and make my moves there. It’s not right to pick and choose something of this magnitude. Everyone in this nation should be treated equally when it comes to a life or death situation. In 2007 at the State Bar of Wisconsin Annual Convention in Milwaukee, pro- and anti-death penalty activists gathered to debate over the death penalty. During this debate, James P. McKay Jr. an assistant state’s attorney with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office in Chicago, and a pro-death penalty supporter, stated in defense that he “absolutely believes that the death penalty brings justice to a murder victim’s family” (Pribek), and that he has “never called for the death penalty in a case for political purposes” (Pribek). Professor John C. McAdams, a political science professor of Marquette University in Milwaukee, and an anti-death penalty supporter, fired back with, “The state should not implement the death penalty because of its irrevocability.

Whether the state is literally taking a prisoner’s life, versus locking him or her up for life, the state has taken that person’s life by vanquishing his or her freedom” (Pribek). Moments after, McAdams closed out the debate with the crowd on his side, stating, “If I were on the Supreme Court, I’d say that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment” (Pribek). Although some death penalty advocates consider themselves the voice of the innocent victims and their families, McAdams made a very notable point.

Penitentiaries don’t have to eradicate the murderer to serve justice. But you can end a life; sentence the murderer to serve permanent incarceration, and you will deprive them from freedom, or in other words, life; which in return satisfies the amendments. Yet, “we the people”, continue to put the power of life or death into the hands of fallible, sometimes prejudiced, narrow-minded people and ask them to play God and determine who’s worthy to live a life that we did not bestow upon them.

Sentencing someone to life is the most reasonable solution in more ways then one. There have been 140 exonerations since 1972, and from 2000 to 2007 there has been an average of 5 exonerations per year — innocent people suffering for no reason (Woodford). The average time between the sentencing to death of the once sought guilty, to their proven innocence, is 10 years. If U. S. citizens could find it in their hearts to come together and drop down to the humanitarian level, there could be change in the system with awareness, and spread of word.

There has to be other people who share the same feelings, and cringe at the thought of possible government killings toward non-guilty — it’s unsupportable. Its mind boggling to note that there has been 140 non-guilty offenders put in prison with the presumption that they are going to die, and then some years later, they are freed. The probable innocent killing can easily be solved by sentencing presumable murderers to life without parole. The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases.

If the death penalty was replaced with life without parole, an immense amount of money would be saved. According to a California Commission report in 2008, California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment (Woodford). The report stated — with reforms to ensure a fair trail to the current system in place, the death penalty would cost California an estimate of $232 million a year and the cost for a system that imposed lifetime incarnation instead of the death penalty would only cost $11. 5 million a year (Woodford). Two birds with one stone.

The evidence for capital punishment as an uniquely effective deterrent to murder is especially important, since deterrence is the only major pragmatic argument on the pro-death penalty side. The theory is, if murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life; what is feared most, deters most. In 1973, Isaac Ehrlich, statistician who, after looking at national homicide rates between 1930 and 1970, established an analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder.

But this however, has been proven inconclusive, and results cannot be duplicated by other researchers. Then in 1997, George Pataki, the Governor of New York state at the time, stated during the anniversary of reinstating death penalty, “To fight and deter crime effectively, individuals must have every tool government can afford them, including the death penalty” (Paraki). The governor made strong relations with the death penalty and the potential of installing fear in other potential murders.

Pataki continued with strong regards to the deterrence theory after mentioning that the death penalty was a key contributor to the recent dramatic drop in violent crimes — “In New York, the death penalty has turned the tables on fear and put it back where it belongs-in the hearts of criminals. I know, as do most New Yorkers, that by restoring the death penalty, we have saved lives” (Pataki). I do not feel that execution best punishes criminals for their acts.

Instead, in my opinion, the administration of the death penalty should end because it does not deter crime, it risks the death of an innocent person, it costs millions of dollars, it inflicts unreasonable pain, and most importantly it violates moral principles. The inconsistency doesn’t make sense either, according to Nearly everyone that has been summoned to death row, is spurred from to According to our Bill of Rights, I cannot be deprived of life without due process of law (US Const. , amend. V). So if the process of law is carried out, the courts can decide to kill me if my crime is severe enough to correspond with capital punishment.

But, according to the eighth amendment, I’m protected from cruel and unusual punishment ? isn’t killing someone cruel and unusual? Did our Framers mean that the death penalty has to be humane, or did they mean the person has to be imprisoned for life? Is it right for someone you have never met to define these so called “rights” and never be consistent with their definitions? So here we are with a lot of questions and no right answers! Yes, Poncelet did commit a crime and he should pay; but how can someone that didn’t put you in this world, take you out?

The death penalty is cruel and unusual. Why can’t the court system just sentence someone to life in prison? I believe if you take the life of another, it is a form of cruel punishment. In my eyes, it could be a violation of the eighth amendment. Our fifth amendment states, that with the processes of due law, they can deprive us of life. But how can someone construe that as killing us and taking our life? The judicial courts should have interpreted this as putting someone in prison until they die. If you’re imprisoned for the rest of your life, then you have been deprived of life.

This should be enough justice. It’s not like someone will be enjoying their time. I don’t see how the people that operate the death penalties can sleep at night; killing someone because they killed just isn’t right. They should actually make a certain prison for those who have been deprived of life, the ones who have killed. The prison should have the inmates locked up in a small dark room for 24 hours a day with no contact with anyone, no bed, no blanket, just a toilet and pictures of the victims engraved into the walls of their cell.

At least this way, the killer could regret what he/she did and maybe feel some sort of remorse. It would drive the person insane. It’s also messed up for the court system to appoint a state lawyer to defend you and call that a fair trail. No lawyer really cares if you win or lose the case all they care about is the money. If one is well off when it comes to money, then of course one can afford a nice experienced lawyer that would probably bust his ass and do anything to win the case, for the reason that he would probably get more money. But if you can’t afford a lawyer, they will be happy to appoint you one.

He is probably making salary and his pay isn’t justified if you win or not. If your pay doesn’t fluctuate, then there is no drive; he’s not going to work as hard and not give the case as much thought. When it’s all said and done, the appointed lawyer has nothing to lose. Maybe it’s just your luck and he is a newbie and doesn’t have any business in a case involving a murder. If they want to make it a fair trail, why can’t they pay for a top notch individual lawyer who excels in that position? We should be able to pick our own, so then at least the poor person can have a chance.

I mean when you’re talking about someone’s life you don’t want any Joe Blow defending your case. Here is a statistic for you; according to American Civil Liberties Union “Approximately 90 percent of those on death row could not afford to hire a lawyer when they were tried” (Tabak). Is it okay that only some states have the death penalty? I don’t think so. If I live in Washington State and go to Alaska to kill a man, under Alaska law I will not receive capital punishment (DPIC); the worst I would get is life in prison. But if I would have stayed and did my killings in Washington, I would be put on death row (DPIC).

If the United States isn’t consistent with who dies and who doesn’t, then obviously there’s something wrong. It just doesn’t seem right to pick and choose something of this magnitude. Everyone in this nation should be treated equally when it comes to a life or death situation. Here’s yet another problem that I have found: weren’t we all suppose to have unalienable rights– rights that can never be taken away from us; the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? But wait; in some states they can take away our life if the crime seems bad enough.

I’m no law expert, but this doesn’t seem to mesh together either. I thought the government could only suppress these rights by dictators and tyrants under oppressive regimes. The most controversial subject when talking about capital punishment is that the executioners are actually committing a crime that should put them on death row too. It’s probably the most obvious debate, but seriously, how can the same group of people who just told you that killing is illegal, turn around and kill people? That doesn’t sound fair, does it? Shouldn’t the law be equal for everyone?

If murdering is illegal, then how in the hell are these people getting away with this? There’s no reason why they should get exempt from this law. They are just as bad as the criminal who committed crime. There’s another example of how inconsistent this “act of justice” (Volpe) is being used. Two wrongs don’t make a right I don’t care how fucked up the situation may be. This law simply contradicts itself. I know I stated that it was hard to choose a side, but while writing this paper, I am confident that I oppose the whole capital punishment bullshit.

Yeah, I get where people are coming from, but the reasons to not believe in the death penalty overweigh the reasons to believe in the death penalty. The only way to solve this disagreement is to actually go in and define the wording in the fifth and eighth amendments. The Framers left the Constitution open, leaving the interpretations flexible to the generations of justice to come. Once our judicial government can come to an agreement on the wording in the Constitution, then maybe we can decide if we want to continue killing people by stooping down to the criminal level.

Kartha, Deepa. “10 Pros and Cons of Capital Punishment. ” Buzzle Web Portal: Intelligent Life on the Web. 5 Dec. 2009. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. . Tabak. “Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. ” American Civil Liberties Union. 1984. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. . http://www. jmu. edu/evision/archive/volume2/Volpe. pdf Works Cited DPIC. “Introduction to the Death Penalty. ” Death Penalty Information Center. 2012. Web. 1 June 2012. Hull, Elizabeth. “Guilty On All Counts. ” Social Policy 39. 4 (2010): 11-25. Academic Search Complete. Print.

Pataki, George E. “Death Penalty Is a Deterrent. ” Ed. John Hillkirk. USA Today [McLean] 1 Mar. 1997. Print. Pribek, Jane. “Pro- And Anti-Death Penalty Advocates Square Off At State Bar Of Wisconsin Annual Convention. ” Wisconsin Law Journal (Milwaukee, WI) (n. d. ): Regional Business News. Print. Volpe, Tara. “Capital Punishment: Does Death Equal Justice? ” Jmu. edu. 2002. E-vision. Web. 10 June 2012. Woodford, Jeanne. “10 Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty. ” Death Penalty. Death Penalty Focus, 2012. Web. 11 June 2012.

Argumentative essay Death penalty The issue of whether death penalty should be abolished or not has been widely debated for years and there are a lot of different views. It is an important issue since it concerns one of the most fundamental human rights, which is the right to live. Death is wrong when a single person commits the murder, but when the decision if a person should be killed or not is made by the society as a unit, the act is apparently justified. This essay deals with the contradiction in the arguments being given as a support to the death penalty.

It will also put forward reason for why this cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment should be abolished. The death penalty is practiced in many parts of the world today. Amnesty International, the leading human rights non-governmental organisation, have been working to abolish the death penalty for over the past 20 years. But 58 countries maintain the death penalty in both law and practice, and thousands of people is executed annually in cold-blooded ways like stoning, death by deadly injection, hanging and the electric chair.

These actions are being approved without any legitimate basis. First of all, the death penalty is a violation of two fundamental human rights, as laid down in Articles 3 and 5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “The right to life” and “The right not to be tortured or subject to any cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment”. Fact is, the most successful form of torture is reportedly the threat of execution. From the moment you are put in death row and the minute up to the execution is one of the most agonizing form of psychological exploitation.

No man or woman should endure this kind of torment, no matter what crime they have committed. Human rights are for everyone, always, and can never be forfeited. No exceptions. Furthermore, there is a risk that it can be inflicted on the innocent, and an execution is final and a life cannot be taken back. Secondly, an execution cannot work as any form of satisfaction for the victim’s family since an execution will not restore anyone’s life and the crime that first was committed by the perpetrator cannot be undone.

As a matter a fact, many whose relatives or friends have been murdered, have distanced themselves from the death penalty. In addition, an execution causes a lot of grief and pain for the family of the executed, while imprisonment is giving them the opportunity to stay in contact with the confined. Thirdly, the death penalty is not a contribution to a safer society. Numerous of studies have shown that there is no scientific evidence saying that executions have a greater effect than lifetime prison when it comes to a decrease of serious violent crimes.

Some research actually shows that the number of serious violent crimes is increasing directly after an execution. Furthermore, those who commit for an example premeditated murder do not think they will get busted, so it is more likely that the deterrent effect would be greater if the probability of getting arrested was higher. Obviously, the death penalty prevents the criminal from committing more crimes. But on the other hand, you can never be sure that the criminal would have repeated the crime if he or she is not allowed to live.

Some studies actually show that murderers, as a group, are the least likely to relapse into crime after being released. In conclusion, the death penalty should be abolished. It is one of the cruellest treatments, which no man or women deserves to experience, whatever crime has been committed. Moreover, the executed could have been innocent, and an execution is final and cannot be taken back. In addition, death penalty is not a contribution to a safer society. For the reasons given, noting good can come from an execution and therefore should the death penalty with no doubt be abolished.

Abolishment of Capital Punishment Capital punishment should be abolished for the following reasons. 1) It violates the Eight Amendment of the use of cruel and unusual punishment, for which the Supreme Court has vacillated. 2) It is a form of premeditated murder. 3) It promotes racism. 4) It can be administered to innocent individuals through tainted evidence. 5) The death penalty does not deter criminals from committing violent crimes. The death penalty is a form of cruel and unusual punishment that violates citizen’s Eighth Amendment which has forced the Supreme Court to step in and evaluate this form of punishment.

The death penalty has not always been practiced in the United States; however, there have been about 13,000 people who have been legally executed since colonial times. In 1972, the Supreme Court effectively nullified the death penalty. However, in 1976 another Supreme Court found capital punishment to be Constitutional (White 1). One must wonder why they made this decision. In 2007 the court put executions across the country on hold for eight months while it examined whether lethal injection, the most common means of executing prisoners, violated the Eight Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (Lacayo).

How can they not see this form of punishment as cruel and unusual? Individuals are killed by electricity seeping through their bodies, or drugs that cause their organs to shut down one at a time. It’s difficult to unerstand what the government perceives as cruel and unusual punishment. Maybe to them this would mean lining individuals up and killing them at point blank range. What could be crueler than strapping individuals to a chair and sending electricity through their bodies essentially cooking their insides, or putting a lethal dose of drugs into their body that causes organ failure.

The method of taking another human’s life is cruel no matter how it is achieved. This gives too much power to individuals in society. The death penalty is a form of premeditated murder. According to dictionary. com, murder is the killing or slaughter of an individual inhumanely or barbarously. What gives the state or normal everyday citizens the right to determine whether or not an individual lives or dies? This is essentially doing what the criminal did and justifying it by hiding behind the law. Murder is murder whether it is committed by the drug dealer on the street or y the executioner who administers the lethal dose of medication into the inmate’s veins. Some individuals feel that the death penalty gives way to racism and class oppression. African Americans and Latinos represent the majority of inmates on death row. Because of this, executions are exclusively for the poor. Ninety percent of those awaiting execution cannot afford to hire a competent trial attorney (“Reasons to Abolish Death Penalty,”). Too often those convicted are unable to afford a dream defense team and must settle for court appointed attorneys.

These attorneys are often overworked and underpaid. In many cases the appointed attorney has little at stake regardless of the outcome. The biggest problem with the use of the death penalty is that often innocent individuals are sentenced to this heinous form of punishment. There are a staggering number of cases where individuals have been wrongfully convicted. Over the past few years, there have been several stories of individuals who have been convicted of horrific crimes and been sentenced to death only to be freed years later by DNA evidence. Here is a prime example of one of those individuals.

Earl Washington spent almost ten years on Virginia’s death row. He was exonerated by DNA evidence and pardoned by the governor. The same DNA test that cleared Earl, implicated a known serial rapist, yet law enforcement and prosecution continue to claim Earl guilty, apparently believing that Earl raped the victim leaving another man’s sperm. Nationwide over 100 condemned Americans have been exonerated since 1976 and walked off death row as free men (Ballard). Even though we have come a long way with DNA there will always be police officers who are pressured to solve cases too fast.

Some may use whatever tools are necessary including planting evidence or falsifying documents to establish guilt. As with the case above most police officers, as well as district attorneys, do not want to admit when they are wrong, even if it spares the life of an innocent human. It is heard time and time again that capital punishment helps to deter similar crimes. Evidence does not support this claim. Representative Maxine Waters stated that she does not believe you deter the taking of lives by others by having a death penalty.

She went on to say that in the final analysis it does not work fairly if there’s any such thing as being fair about killing people (“Reasons to Abolish Death Penalty”) Society tends to follow the trends and mindset of those around them. They often feel that since the Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty, it does not violate the rights of those citizens who have been tried and convicted of crimes that warrant this type of punishment. They presume that justice is being carried out in accordance with the laws that the United States government has set forth.

Then there are those who feel the death penalty is an appropriate means of punishing individuals who commit heinous crimes. Many people often refer to this biblical verse, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand and foot for foot” (King James Version, Exodus 20:28). Too often they feel that this gives them the right to take justice into their own hands. Some individuals feel as though criminals should die by execution if the crime fits the punishment. Talk show host Larry Elder stated that society has the right to judge who lives and who dies.

He says “criminals have made the ultimate sin against society and society is making a moral statement about your conduct” (Ballard, 2003). People who support the death penalty laugh at the notion that they are promoting racism. Statistics about race indicate that 90% of crimes are committed against whites. The study also stated that African Americans committed 7. 5 times more violent than whites (Sheehan, 1995). The conclusion is drawn that they are not targeting race as a factor when handing out death penalties, they are punishing the perpetrator of the crime without taking the race of the individual into factor.

The fact that innocent people are placed on death row has not deterred judges from handing down this punishment. Many do not discount the fact that several people have been placed on death row only to be exonerated. The justice system allows every individual convicted of a crime so many appeals before the sentence is carried out. To the supporters of the death penalty this allows those wrongfully convicted the opportunity to produce evidence that will exonerate themselves. Supporters of the death penalty feel as though this helps to deter other criminals from committing the same act.

According to a dozen studies, execution saves lives. The study stated that for each inmate executed three to eighteen murders are prevented (Liptak, 2007). Two law professors from Harvard also agree that the evidence of deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive. They seem to agree that capital punishment will save lives. After examining the information available for both the supporters and the non-supporters of capital punishment, it is clearly evident that capital punishment should be abolished. This form of unishment is cruel and unusual. It also allows our peers to commit murder by standing behind the law, which is no different than the criminals that are being put to death. Too often this form of punishment is passed down to innocent individuals who spend years trying to clear their name, and often do not get the chance to do so. Furthermore, there is not enough evidence to support that the death penalty deters other criminals. After all, there are better ways that tax money could be spent on individuals who commit crimes against society.

The question that the government needs to ask themselves is if this form of punishment is worth the cost of innocent life that comes with it. Works Cited “Another Reason to Abolish the Death Penalty. ” Workers. com. 2009. 11 Mar. 2013. <htpp://www. workers. org/2009/editorials/death_penal>. Ballard, Scotty . www. findarticles. com. 2003. 11 Mar. 2013. <http://findarticles. com/p/ariticles>. Lacayo, Richard . “The Tide Shifts Against the Death Penalty. ” www. time. com. 3 Feb. 2009. 12 Mar. 2013. <http://www. time. com/time/nation/article/0,8599,187>. Liptak, Adam . “Does Death Penalty Save Lives?

A New Debate. ” The New York Times. 18 Nov. 2007. 12 Mar. 2013. <http://www. nytimes. com/2007/11/18/us/18deter. html? >. Sheenan, Paul . “The Race War of Blacks Against Whites. ” heretical. com. 20 May. 1995. 11 Mar. 2013. <http://www. heretical. com/miscella/sheehan. html>. The Holy Bible, King James Version. New York: Oxford Edition: 1769; King James Bible Online, 2008. http://www. kingjamesbibleonline. org/. White, Deborah . “Pros and Cons of Death Penalty and Capital Punishment. ” About. com US Liberal Politics. 12 Mar. 2013. <http://usliberals. about. com/od/deathpenalty/i/Deat>.

Every day through media streams, we hear news about murders, homicides, and killing. It is hard to spend a day without hearing about these things nowadays. We have our own right to our own lives, but that doesn’t mean we have rights to the person sitting next to us or anyone else. I’ve studied on this topic for almost a year now and I know main issues related to this topic and a few important historical movements related to the death penalty.

In the past few years, the death penalty was a controversial issue in many pro death penalty nations like the United States, China, Iran and many more. Since 1990, more than thirty countries abolished the death penalty because it was considered immoral . Supporters of the death penalty consider killing the person who killed others people and that supports why the death penalty is immoral in many ways. First, it violates religious views and beliefs, innocent people get wrongly accused and mostly executed, costs way too much money, and lastly it is not how we deal with crimes.

California and Oklahoma were two states involved in the death penalty survey proving that it has reduced crime rate or not (Gorecki). The survey proved to be negative showing that the death penalty actually had increased crime rate rather than decreasing it (Gorecki). Professor Craig Haney of University of California at Santa Cruz conducted the survey on 800 citizens of Santa Cruz, they were chosen randomly by their social security numbers (Gorecki). Professor Haney conducted this same kind of survey back in 1989 when he received strong favor of the death penalty (Gorecki).

In 1989, 74% of 800 citizens favored the death penalty, but in 2009, those numbers fell drastically to 44% (www. deathpenaltyinfo. com). The Supreme Court cases Ballard v. Florida, Thibodeaux v. Louisiana are some of the many recent cases of innocent execution that took place in less than a decade . There are many other reasons that I will present later in this essay to prove that the death penalty is not a rightful way to punish a criminal (Schabas). To abolish the death penalty, we should replace it with life imprisonment without parole.

Doing so will save us money and maybe increase budgets for things that communities require, it could save the lives of innocents from dying, no more violation of the Eighth Amendment and human morals, and no evidence that it deters crime rate. First, Innocent people are getting executed ever since the death penalty has been around. The death penalty has claimed lives of 141 innocent citizens since 1973-today with little over half being black and the other half are whites and other races . The Innocence protection Act became a law in 2004 (Ross).

Law had a huge effect on innocent executions because the law forced the Supreme Court to test the DNA of an inmate and match it with the sample found at the crime scene (Guernesey). Act also started charging money to the United States prisons for every wrong conviction made since the effect of the law (Guernesey). Innocent convictions were also caused by racism, bribing, eyewitness error, snitch, government misconduct, and false confessions. To stop innocent executions we should appeal to the courts to allow two different lawyers to have a look in at the same case for errors that could have been missed by one.

Judges should not go straight on conclusion, but ask if anyone on both sides have a lingering doubt they might want to clear, and Secondly, the death penalty costs up to $117 million for up to four executions per year (Costanzo). Estimated cost for keeping an inmate in a cell until the execution date average around $90,000 – $95,000 (Costanzo). State of California itself has held 1940 executions since 1978 up until 2009; estimated total cost for 1940 execution was around $4 billion. In comparison to the death penalty cases, life imprisonment cases cost 4 times less (Costanzo).

The United States can save up to $12 million per year if the death penalty gets replaced by life imprisonment without parole (Costanzo). The American Civil Liberties Union reviewed the statistics on taxpayers’ money and concluded that, approximately $90 million goes towards the death penalty executions (Costanzo). Capital trails costs up to $11 million per execution comparing to $4 million for life imprisonment . Almost everyone in the United States, whether they’re against the death penalty or not, complains about current condition of the US economy not being very good.

Due to that fact, we should replace the death penalty with life imprisonment; this could save money for infrastructures, schools, colleges and health care and increase their yearly budgets. Biases also play a big role in determining who will and who will not get executed (Ross). Types of biases that I’m referring to are racial bias and class bias, and political bias (Ross). According to NAACP (National Association of the Advancement of Colored People), out of 40 percent of inmates on death row, 12 percent accused inmates are penalized due to the racial bias in their case (Winters147).

Another study was conducted by NAACP, informing us that killers of whites are more likely to get executed than the killers of black (Ross). To avoid racial bias effecting capital punishment decisions, U. S. Senate suggested a Racial Justice Act, an act that outlawed any case that was suspected and held under racial discrimination, but it was consistently defeated (Bohm). Class biases are much more common than racial bias, class biases occurs when a lower class person gets accused and doesn’t have enough wealth to hire a good defense lawyer (Haag 167).

Protagonist side would argue that the death penalty cause deterrence in crime rates, DNA Testing saved many innocent victims, even bible supported the death penalty, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9:6) and life imprisonment keep the fear alive inside victims’ family. The American Civil Liberties Union collected some data on crime rates over the past few years and concluded that, the pro death penalty states had higher crime by up to 46 percent than the states without the death penalty .

Statistics showed that, Eventhough, crime rates in the pro death penalty states has decreased, crime rates in states without the death penalty had also decreased. In 2011, 11,221 people were killed in thirty-four pro death penalty states, whereas only 6,395 people were killed in sixteen anti-death penalty states. DNA testing was first used in 1990s, but massive effect of that system took place in the September 2011 when it saved 273 lives of innocents that were once announced guilty . DNA system saved 75 percent of innocent convictions in past few years, but what about rest 25 percent. Now this could be where the class biases come in, rich people could force to not have DNA testing conducted with the power of their money, or poor people could not afford a tests like these once they started paying lawyer fees . Pro-death penalty people would also argue that if the death penalty is replaced with life imprisonment without parole, it would keep the fear of criminal being alive inside them. But think about other side effects the death penalty is having on the society, the death penalty is doing nothing but executing.

As mentioned earlier in the essay, the death penalty does not deter crime rate, it kills innocent people, and it costs 4 times more than life imprisonment (Costanzo). The life imprisonment could save lives of many innocent people who would have been executed by the death penalty. Exactly what people are worried about are inmates escaping the prisons, but there are low chances of escaping, because according to the Bureau of Justice Department, in 2006, inmates escape rate was 3 percent for every 2 million inmates. In 2011, numbers are around 1. 3 percent per 2 million inmates . I am sure that if everyone knew all facts related to the death penalty, they would have never stood by it and it is not late to be so yet. By looking at the both sides carefully and patiently, I think we should replace death penalty with life imprisonment, because death penalty has many bad effects like high costs, innocent executions, different types of biases effecting final judgment, violation of the eighth amendment and human morals.

Whereas, life imprisonment 4 times less than the death penalty, and innocent people have a chance to be free if they are proven not guilty. It is not our job to take revenge on people, listen to the word of creator, “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath”, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay”.

Work Cited

1. Bohm, Robert M. Ultimate Sanction: Understanding the Death Penalty through Its Many Voices and Many Sides. New York: Kaplan Pub. , 2010. Print. 13 Feb. 2013
2. Costanzo, Mark: Just revenge: costs and consequences of the death penalty; St. Martin’s Press, New York, Academic Search Complete, 1997. Print. 18 January 2013.
3. Gorecki, Jan. Capital Punishment: Crimial Law and Social Evolution. New York: Columbia UP, Academic Search Complete, 2000. Print. 22 January 2013.
4. Guernsey, JoAnn Bren. The Death Penalty: Fair Solution or Moral Failure? Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century, 2010. Print. 22 February 2013.
5. Schabas, William. The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law. Cambridge, U. K. Cambridge UP, Academic Search Complte 1997. Print. 11 February 2013.
6. Winters, Paul A. The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven, Academic Search Complete 1997. Print. 20 February 2013.
7. United States. Bureau Of Justice. US Department of Justice. Prisoners in 2011. By Ann E. Carson and William J. Sabol. N. p. , Dec. 2012. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.
8. Cooper, David. “Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates. ” Death Penalty Information Center. N. p. , n. d. Web. 12 Apr. 2013. <http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org >.

According to Republic Act No. 7659, death penalty is a penalty for crimes that are “heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society. ” Death penalty is a cruel, futile and dangerous punishment for “very serious reasons and with due judicial process. According to Amnesty International, a worldwide movement of people working for internationally recognized human rights; death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights. Thus, they worked towards abolishing it in order to “end the cycle of violence created by a system riddled with economic and racial bias and tainted with human error. “

Background

Next, I would like to present a brief background on death penalty in the Philippines. In 1987, the Philippines made history by becoming the first Asian country in modern times to abolish the death penalty for all crimes.

However, six years later, in 1993, the death penalty was reintroduced in the Philippines for 46 different offences. Such of those are murder, rape, parricide, infanticide and qualified bribery, among others. Executions resumed in 1999 until year 2000 when former President Estrada announced a moratorium on executions. This has been continued by current President Arroyo, in practice, throughout her presidency. Now, under her rule, the death penalty is again abolished .

Stance

I am in favor of abolishing the death penalty law in the Philippines.

Allow me to present my arguments. First, it violates the right to live. Second, it is a very cruel practice. Third, it is anti-poor. Last, death penalty defeats its purpose.

Arguments

First, the imposition of death penalty violates a person’s right to live. Article III Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, states that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property…” By imposing death penalty, the right of a criminal to live is being violated. Furthermore, it is a known fact that majority of Filipinos are Catholics.

As said, we have one of the world’s largest Christian populations. According to the Ten Commandments of the Church, thou shall not kill. Therefore, nobody is given the right to commit the lives of others. Whether that person is a criminal or not, nobody has the right to play God and take the life that He has given. Filipinos should “respect and value the sanctity of human life and uphold the virtue and religious doctrines that are expected of us as a dominant Christian nation. ” Second, it is a very cruel, inhuman and irreversible practice.

It is very cruel and in human because persons are killed. This alone is proof. Once a person is killed, the act cannot be reversed. Third, death penalty is anti-poor. In a country like the Philippines with a very slow, sometimes inefficient, unfair and unjust judicial system, death penalty is simply not viable. Majority of the 1200 people on the death row are poor. Maybe, for some, being there is what they deserve. But for many, it is poverty that brought them there. Not everyone in that row should die.

Many are simply there because they ran against some filthy rich and powerful person or they could not afford to get a good lawyer to defend them. A study showed that “death penalty is anti-poor as the underprivileged who cannot afford the services of competent counsels are oftentimes the ones convicted of death penalty”. “Studies have shown that the death penalty is disproportionately imposed on the poorest, least educated and most vulnerable members of society. It takes the lives of offenders who might otherwise have been rehabilitated. ” Lastly, death penalty does not live up to its purpose.

It is not able to serve its purpose which is to prevent crimes and to preserve peace and order. According to the President, in a letter she sent to Senate President Franklin M. Drilon, the imposition of death penalty “was shown to have not served its principal purpose of effectively deterring the commission of heinous crimes”. Clearly, even with death penalty imposed, the Philippines still continued to project high and rising crime rates in the country. If death penalty is effective, there should have been less crimes but it is quite the contrary.

Also, there are no concrete evidence like studies or tests that could prove that the imposition of death penalty really prevents crime thus maintaining peace and order in the country.

Summary

To cap off this essay, death penalty is the punishment served to those who have committed crimes that are “heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society. I am in favor of the abolition of death penalty because first, its imposition violates the right to live. Second, it is a very cruel, inhuman and irreversible act. Third, death penalty is anti-poor. Lastly, death penalty does not serve its purpose of preventing crimes and preserving peace and order. I wish to end this speech by saying that I commend the Congress for passing a legislation calling for the abolition of death penalty. As CBCP puts it, this step has finally led the country “to move from justice that kills to justice that heals.

How To Put To Death “Death Penalty”

Death Penalty as we all know is a Legalized form of Killing or murder; it is a legalized “SIN” because “to kill or to murder” what we all know is sin and some called an act of killing or murder an “EVIL act”. Does the implementation of Death Penalty bring life, justice and end heinous crimes in the Philippines? I don’t think so.

But the new Vice President of the Philippines Jejomar Binay thinks it so as he utter his desire to bring back death penalty in the Philippine in his outburst emotional response when he attended the wake of the brutally murdered son of attorney Oliver Lozano at media interview. “Dapat ibalik na ang death penalty…” ( “It is high time to bring back death penalty”) Jejomar Binay Death Penalty has been in the Philippines since the Marcos administration but was only removed at the time of former Philippine president Corazon Aquino and was revived during between the administration of former Philippine presidents Fidel V.

Ramos and Joseph Ejercito Estrada and was removed again at the time of the recent former Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo because of the mistake and failure of the execution of the First ever Filipino to receive death penalty by lethal injection –Leo Echagaray for the crime of rape which was found eventually that he is not guilty or was innocent of the crime he was accused of and the true rapist is at large and unknown. What a big slap on the Philippines justice system, thus it was removed.

It was the roar and pro-death penalty campaigns in the media which influenced unlearned people that Leo Echagaray succumb into untimely death before he was proven innocent; so sad that people at that time were driven by brainless wrath to revenge for the rape victim. But now Vice president Binay, is wishing to bring it back? ; To repeat this “sad scenario” just to tell to the world that “we do justice”, WHAT JUSTICE?? Does he think well when he utters a wish for its revival or is he just emotional overwhelmed at the wake of the brutally murdered son of attorney Oliver Lozano?

There are many bad consequences to the justice system of the Philippines when Death penalty will be rekindled its frightening presence in the Philippines. More injustices will be engendered in the end by mistakenly sentencing to death innocent poor Filipinos and foreigners once they could not proven themselves innocent at the allowed period of presenting evidences and proofs that one is not guilty of the crime being accused of and by the influence of ignorant brainless and heartless wrathful masses.

Moreover, if one is financially poor and destitute how can one find a trustworthy attorney that cannot be bought by money, to depend one’s innocence? Truly more innocent lives will be shredded unjustly by this satanic capital punishment. Furthermore, we already know that the financially rich and wealthy prosecuted and accused ones could pervert justice and could buy money-face attorneys, lawyers and judges.

Therefore, is this “death penalty” will stop heinous crimes or will just added more unjust crimes perpetrated by its revival and presence, wherein “death penalty” is also a heinous crime concealed by the law of legality of the state or country. For death penalty is an act of torturing a person until it dies, which has no difference with the sadistic and psychotic behavior of seemingly soulless criminals who torture first their victims before they eventually kill their victims.

Death penalty is NOT HUMANE ACT, rather it is BEASTIAL ACT. Bestial act (death penalty) against bestial act (heinous crimes) will not solve or eliminate crimes within the country or state. Fear is not the answer and will not uproot the main cause of crimes. it just controls but never solves; it just control the symptoms but never cures and heals. JC tortured and received Death Penalty A more humanitarian solution is the key to solve bestial problems like crimes; for every effect (activities) there is a cause (reason for the activity).

The cause should be addressed to solve the problem and not controlling the effects without removing the cause; For the effects will not end if the cause is not removed. Remember Filipinos, your National Hero, Dr. Jose Rizal was a victim of Death penalty or capital punishment which is Firing squad during the Spanish occupation but he is innocent. Remember also Filipinos, your beloved colonial religious deity Jesus Christ was also a victim of Death penalty or capital punishment which is crucifixion but Jesus Christ is innocent.

Remember also Filipinos, your beloved fellow Filipinos that have suffered Death Penalty on other countries by hanging are also innocent. Remember Filipinos, the humane in you and don’t let the bestial overtake your human side. Remember Filipinos, to Love and Understand and don’t let Hate and Wrath overtake that Love and understanding within your soul.

The Death Penalty, Good or Bad?

A few days ago the chief of Police for West Orange, New Jersey spoke out about the negative effects of the death penalty.

James Abbott (police chief) stated that “the death penalty is broken beyond repair and that the extra money spent pursuing executions could be better spent on crime prevention and the needs of victims”. “I no longer believe that you can fix the death penalty. Six months of study opened my eyes to its shocking reality. I learned that the death penalty throws millions of dollars down the drain money that I could be putting directly to work fighting crime every day while dragging victims’ families through a long and torturous process that only exacerbates their pain. Now in New Jersey, the death penalty has been outlawed. The death penalty is being replaced with life in prison with no chance of parole. Is this really gonna lower the costs that the death penalty brings about? On top of that, could the money used for the death penalty really be used to help change people’s attitudes on how they act? Currently, the state of New Jersey has spent over a quarter of a billion dollars on the death penalty in the last 30 years.

Would this be enough money to “rehabilitate a murderer”? Personally I think trying to have a murderer rehabilitated is a waste of time. I know there is the saying that everyone deserves a 2nd chance but in the case of murder, there is no 2nd chance for the murdered. Why should we not take another’s life if he murdered another life? Not only for cost reasons do I think life in prison would be a waste of money but also ethically I think life imprisonment is cruel.

I know there are a lot of ethical dilemmas involved but would we as humans be cruel enough to torture another human for the rest of his life in prison? To me, ending someone’s life fast and quick seems more human than dragging out a sentence for however number of years. Also, even if the man or woman was not being tortured in prison, we would be spending money on keeping 1 person alive who murdered another. Where is the justice behind that! There should be justice in this world.

There are many forms of justice in this world but in the case of murdering another human being, I think there should only be one final verdict. A murder should be tried then if found guilty put to death. No one can bring back a dead person. A family member who lost a loved one because another person murdered them would want justice for the murder’s crime. Article III. Bill of Rights Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.