Death Penalty

Even Death penalty for Rape is not good enough! Social issues by Editor ‘Rape’ the word itself sends across chills down the spine! Only a woman who has undergone such brutality understands the pain, dismay and disgrace that it beholds. Rape or forcible sexual contact is indeed the most shameful facet of humanity. It causes ultimate social and psychological dissuasion of a woman. Indian society still lacks the compassion and humanity to treat raped women with grace and sympathy.

Even though women are no way guilty for the sexual offense they have gone through, neighbors, relatives and friends blame her for her circumstances. It makes their life even more unbearable. Understanding the disgraceful after-effects of an incident like ‘Rape’, women are often afraid to seek legal assistance on this matter. Instead they keep such matters under secrecy which often instigate the offenders to commit the same crime over and over again. Currently the legal punishment allocated to rapists is 7 years’ jail sentence.

Apart from cases featuring exceptional brutality, often rapists do not face death penalty sentences. Now the death penalty debate is one of the most controversial matters being churned in India . Personally I feel rape death penalty should be implemented with strictest possible terms of logic and common sense. Following are the reasons why there should be death penalty for rape: Indeed rape is one of the most heinous crimes out there but it has become a common practice in Indian society.

Nowadays, you would find at least one (sometimes more than one) crime news covering ‘rape’ every day on Television or Newspapers and crimes against women are increasing. It implies that the 7 years’ imprisonment penalty assigned for rape is not good enough to put a stop on this brutality. Generally death penalty is exercised for rarest cases in India. Rape death penalty, if implemented will ensure that people would think twice before committing this crime which will in turn reduce the statistics significantly.

This will bring down the crime ratio and sexual harassment against women, people would certainly not take the chance. Till date death sentence is considered the most critical punishment possible. And when a woman is raped, it turns out to be social death for her. Hence the offender, who causes such destitution to the victim, should also suffer the same consequence. If death is allocated as rape penalty, it will instill the fear in people, often in rural parts of India; people use rape as a common method to settle personal scores.

If they know that raping a woman might take its toll of their own lives, they might refrain themselves from committing rape. A healthy legal system should strive to provide justice to the victims of crimes. The motto of Indian constitution is to help the nation with proper verdict that will improve their condition by ending the misery. Death sentence is generally given to criminals who have gone far away from being reformed and RAPE is one crime which implies that the convicted has lost his humanitarian qualities and turned into a brute.

Hence they should be punished to death for their misdeed. DEATH SENTENCE is the strictest of all punishments given to offenders. If death penalty is assigned to rapists, it will set example for those who commit such a crime. Moreover, if a person is set free after 7 years’ confinement, he will certainly feel even more confident to commit the same crime over and over again which can cause severe threat to the entire legal system of the country.

Death penalty sentences cost a lot of turmoil, questioning and solid proofs. If the country and its legal system are serious about putting an end to a raped woman’s suffering for good, it should consider assigning death penalty for rapists. Not only it will provide proper judgment for the worst and brutal crime but also it will cause significant drop in rape statistics and crimes against women in India. If you have better solutions than this then do share….

Capital Punishment in the Bahamas

The Bahamas hanged 50 men since 1929 according to records kept at Her Majesty’s Prison. Five were hanged under the Ingraham administration; 13 were hanged under the Pindling government, and 32 inmates were executed between 1929 and 1967. The last act of capital punishment in The Bahamas took place on January 6, 2000 when convicted murderer David Mitchel was executed by hanging.

Mitchel was convicted of stabbing two German tourists to death. (Nassau Guardian, published: August 27, 2012) A report released by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) encourages The Bahamas and other members of the Caribbean which maintain the death penalty to impose a moratorium on execution. The IACHR also urged The Bahamas to ratify the protocols of the American Convention on Human Rights in abolishing or reintroduce its application.

In 2006 the Privy Council ruling determined that the mandatory death sentence was unconstitutional in The Bahamas. Because of this many inmates at Her Majesty’s Prison who were previously under the death penalty had their sentence commuted to life in prison, received other sentences or had their sentences overturned on appeal. Some inmates had been under the death sentence since the 1990s.

In 2011, Parliament passed a law that outlines the categories of murder and states which would have the death penalty attached. The Privy Council ruled that the worst cases of murder is carefully planned and carried out in furtherance of another crime, such as robbery, rape, drug smuggling, human struggling, kidnapping, preventing witnesses from testifying, serial killing, as well as the killing of innocents “for the gratification of base desires”. (Nassau Guardian, published June 21, 2011)

Death Penalty Critical Analysis

Is Death Penalty ever justified? Capital punishment otherwise, also know as death penalty is a legal process whereby a criminal gets executed as a form of punishment. In the past, Capital punishment had been practised by almost all the societies. However, currently due to the increase in awareness of humans’ rights an approximate of 97 countries had abolished this form of punishment. That being said, there are still 58 nations of which includes Singapore, are actively practising it. In my opinion, all human life is to be truly cherished.

Who gave us the rights to deprive another man’s life just because he had committed an unlawful act from our perspective? Instead, offenders who truly want to turn over a new leaf should be given a second chance. Reformation, or rehabilitation is one way, but the succession of such methods lies between whether the offender is able to change or not. As it would be a daunting task to really gauge how penitent they are. Hence, rehabilitation cannot guarantee the safety of the rest of society from these uncivilized criminals, whereas capital punishment, being permanent, can.

A death penalty can also be served as a strong deterrent against potential criminals. Humans are naturally afraid of death, and would rethink again before offending the law. Death penalty can also be seen, as a way to console the victim’s families, should the criminal committed an act of murder. However, one could also argue that even if justice is served, we can never bring back the dead to life. That being said, I think an alternative punishment could be that instead to just end a person’s life, we should make full use of it.

Examples could be having them work for the society, clean the streets or even build roads. Cynically, people will argue that these programmes are even more dangerous, more labour intensive as strict supervision is needed to prevent any sabotage or outbreaks from the offenders. In material terms, for a country like Singapore with scarcity of land space, it would be impossible to simply jail the criminals as there would not be enough prisons. Thus such alternatives may not be quite feasible, however, I believe that in the future technology will help us solve these problems and ultimately exploit these wasted lives.

The main reason why capital punishment is still valid today is because people still commit crimes that deserve such a sentence. As our civilization continues to advance exponentially, it does not automatically mean that people have become more disciplined as well. There will always be deviants in society, and punishment must be meted out to them to maintain law and order. On the bottom line, death penalty is justified, but it should be sparingly used. At the end of the day, we are all humans, and we should not deliberately end a person’s life that easily.

The death penalty has pros and cons. Some of the pros of the death penalty are that it frees more space for incoming prisoners, therefore we can pay less taxes. The amount of space taken from prisoners who have a life sentence take up to much space and the death penalty would prevent that from happening. The cost of the death penalty is dramatically lower then the cost of the sentence “Life Without Parole” JFA [Justice for All] estimates that life without parole cases will cost $1. million-$3. 6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases. There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent life without parole cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent life without parole cases are much more expensive… than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than life without parole.

The death penalty would possibly make people afraid to commit a felony because they might be punished with the ultimate punishment… Death. The cons of the death penalty are many, and often talked about more then the pros. Some of the cons consist of accidental sentencing, believing in human morals, there is more pre-trial time, more experts, twice as many attorneys, two trials will have to be conducted instead of one. One for sentencing, and one for punishment. There will be a series of appeals in which the inmates will have to be kept in a high security ‘death row’.

In my personal opinion I think that the death penalty is important because it will lower the cost of our taxes because we will not have to pay as much to hold life sentencing inmates, which will improve the economy, I think that if the consequence for a serious felony may be death the crime rates will decrease, I also believe that it will make our streets safe and will allow us to create more jobs because there will need to be more law enforcement jobs that will be needed such as attorneys, judges, experts, etc.

The Death Penalty, also known as Capital Punishment is a world wide controversial issue. Should the death penalty be repealed and replaced with life imprisonment without possibility of parole? California voters on Tuesday rejected a ballot measure that would have repealed the state’s death penalty. Supporters against Prop 34 claim that California is broke and taxpayers would pay at least $50,000 annually, giving lifetime healthcare and housing to killers who tortured, raped, and murdered children, cops, mothers and fathers. A yes on Prop. 4 states that no offenders would be sentenced to death under state law. Offenders who are currently under a sentence of death would be resentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The state would provide a total of $100 million in grants to local law enforcement agencies over the next four years. I strongly agree with a vote yes on Prop. 34. The death penalty isn’t an effective way to prevent or reduce a crime. Not only does this not prevent future crimes and murders, but sometimes the death penalty is applied unfairly to innocent people.

Evidence has shown that more than 100 innocent people have been sentenced to death in the United States and some have been executed. Prop. 34 means that the state of California will never execute an innocent person. Franky Carrillo was 16 when he was arrested and wrongly convicted of murder in Los Angeles; it took 20 years to show his innocence. Judge LaDoris Cordell, from Santa Clara said “If someone’s executed and later found innocent, we can’t go back. ” I agree with this judge because what if later we find evidence that the offender is innocent there no way we can bring someone back to life.

So then again who has the right to take the life of a human, when God is the one who decides when our time on earth has come to an end. Life without parole would be less expensive than the death penalty. California’s death penalty is too costly and is hardly used. Only 13 people have been executed since 1967 and no one since 2006. Prisoners are put to death row but die of old age before they make it to there punishment. We waste millions of tax dollars on special housing for these inmates, when they just sit around doing nothing.

To me it makes more sense to keep a killer in a prison for the rest of his/her life until they die. An impartial study found California will save nearly $1 billion in five years if we replace the death penalty with life in prison without possibility of parole. The savings would come from eliminating lawyers’ fees and special death row housing. California is broke and Prop. 34 will save us money. We all know that killing another person is the most evil crime that one can commit.

But it seems that our government is being hypocritical when it states that capital punishment is allowable because, after all, the criminal did murder an innocent victim, and therefore should be killed. This is known as the “eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth theory. ” Of course, if we used this system all the time, there would be no need for laws. The majority of countries in Western Europe, North America and South have abandoned capital punishment. Why is it that the United States remains a user of capital punishment?

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It denies criminals their natural born right to life. The death penalty should be abolished because it has never been shown to lower crime rates or stop serial killers from killing. It costs far more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life. Capital punishment is against the humanity, we can find other alternatives to it. As Voltaire once said, “It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one. ”