Essays /
Pro Con Analysis (Immigrants to Learn English) [19]
The authors of your works cited are not "unknown." They are, respectively, the State of Washington Sentencing Guidelines Commission, the Death Penalty Information Center, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
Also, I think maybe you misunderstand the outline. If you were to follow it, you would be covering "the issues" in virtually every paragraph.
during that year approximately 81% of convicted males and 61.5% of convicted females "had a history of one or more prior offenses."
But, this doesn't tell you what proportion re-offend, which is really the question with recidivism.
Another example of recidivism is from the Criminal Offender Statics on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website, which says that "within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide."
So, that's 2 and 1/2 out of every hundred for rape and just over one out of every hundred for homicide. Do you find those to be compelling numbers?
The resulting conclusion that one can reach to the conflict brought by the death penalty is that there is no real resolution. Individuals who are deeply tied to their beliefs strongly favor one ideology over the other. When it comes to the question of sentencing criminals to be put to death these questions remain unanswered. Is it in the interest of humanity to decide to end one life to avenge another? Or for the sake of humanity does the condemned individual deserve to live, but live locked away?
I see you specifically ignored your teacher's instruction not to end with rhetorical questions. She won't like that. Writing teachings like for whatever specific pieces of advice they give to be followed.
Not to mention that these particular rhetorical questions don't go to the heart of the dispute at all. While proponents of the death penalty believe it to be for the good of humanity, opponents do not see it that way at all. Indeed, most opponents would argue that the death penalty hurts rather than helps the society.
One possible resolution would be, as already has begun to happen, for governors to conclude on the basis of the facts (1. disproportionate death penalties leveled against African Americans, and 2. multiple proven instances of people sentenced to death -- and even killed -- despite innocence) that the death penalty,
whether right or wrong in theory, cannot be impartially nor accurately applied at present and to call a moratorium on executions. This would bring the United States into line with the other democracies. This would anger proponents but, since no innocent people are being killed by the state any more, not injure anybody. Proponents would be free to work for new criminal justice methods that would ensure unbiased and accurate application of the punishment they prefer.