i have written the directions for my assignment. is my research paper ok?
Direction: in a 10-12 page essay, argue about the death penalty. no informational essays (reports) are acceptable. the proposal requires an outline (thesis and main points) and works cited page
The Death Penalty with Many Flaws
In the 18th century B.C., the death penalty was first used in a code called the code of King Hammurabi of Babylon where it lists how a person can be put to death if he or she does not obey the rules. In historical times, when a person is sentence to death, people would throw a stone at the person's head, hanging by the neck, or being drowned. In the 19th century, the laws for the death penalty have change by lowering the crimes that were considering capital punishment. The United States death penalty originated from Great Britain. In the 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the death penalty should be removed from practice. A few years later, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the used of the death penalty. In the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court has rule that it's unconstitutional to kill someone who has mental illness or retardation. The death penalty is the maximum penalty to remove criminals from society, which is controversial.
Many people believe that criminals should die if they murder another human being. Even the bible refers to people who murder others should be punished. Executions are too Costly-Morally by Helen Prejean have stated that,
It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical "proof text" in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes it (649-650).
By killing the criminal, it would save other people from being murder by the same person. All over the world, crimes are being committed, whether it is intentional, unintentional, or with criminal intent of harming others. Depending on the crime the person committed will determine if he or she is sentence to death in countries that offer the death penalty. For example, in California, a man name Scott Peterson was sentence to death for killing his wife. In countries that don't offer the death penalty, the criminals might be sentence to life in prison without parole. How effective is the death penalty? For one thing, it would show that criminals are not wanted in society. Crimes will not go down when someone is put in prison or sentence to death whether or not the countries offer the death penalty. There is always someone there to take away another human being's life or criminals somehow escape from prison with a possibility of harming another human being just to get away. The criminals enjoy the feeling of harming another human being. It gives the criminal a sense of feeling powerful. The criminal could attack again and again until caught. The prisons are built to keep criminals from harming another human being. Prisons help the criminals to not repeat the same crime over again when they are release at the end of their term or on good behavior. However, there are criminals who still commit the same crime over again even upon release. For example, the same rapists would go around and attack women. Once in a while, the rapist would kill the women.
When the criminal shoots someone, the person might receive the death penalty, which is more costly, then life sentence without parole. In the United States, the death penalty costs more then states that don't have the death penalty. For example, in RIGHTS-US: Sky-High Costs - But Few Executions by Carter stated that "Last year, New Jersey, which spent 10.9 million dollars annually on maintaining the death penalty became the first state to abolish the practice since the death penalty was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976". The taxpayers shouldn't have to paid that much money just to keep the criminals in jail where they can receive free health care, food, and whatever else they want before they are put to death. The law is so kind to criminals instead of toward the victims. The money can be better spent for our community to better protect the people. Wouldn't it be better to just put the criminal who has committed a serious crime be sentence to a life without parole? The life sentence costs less and the criminal wouldn't be worrying about whether or not it would be possible to leave jail. The criminal can sit in the jailhouse wondering about their life or feel remorse for their victims. At what cost will we feel to keep criminals lock up? In Supreme Court Decision Brings Focus to Death Penalty Policy by James Clark has stated that, "The largest single expense comes from the extra cost of housing people on death row, which is $90,000 more per year per inmate than general prison housing". There are still over 500 people on death row that still hasn't being put to death but only about a few people have being executed. There could be a possibility that the criminal could die before receiving the death row. In "The Death Penalty," by David Bruck has stated that, "The death penalty states are also learning that the death penalty is easier to advocate than it is to administer" (609). Therefore, the criminal would be better off to die of natural death then to keep the death penalty going.
Yet, the murders have several methods of execution depending on their location in their country to die in a less painful way where it is done in a blink of an eye. The criminals are very lucky because most of the murders they have committed are crimes that are done to victims in a cruel intent that is far more done in unspeakable horror then one could ever imagine or foreseen it. Why don't the criminals who murder the victims in a cruel intent get away with dying less painfully? The United States Constitution protects everyone from cruel and unusual punishment regardless of the criminal action toward his or her victims. Each state that has the death penalty offers at least two different methods of execution. Most states offer lethal injection which first require the criminal to be put to sleep and than injected with a drug call pavulon where it relaxes the body and slowly the person dies. After the criminal who murders the victim passes away, the victim's family can move on. The criminal's family might feel sorry for the victim's family but at the same time would feel hate and anger toward the justice system. However, when the criminal is put in sentence to life in punishment, they could be over come by guilt that it would feel they would wish to apologized to the victim's family for their crime and hoping for forgiveness. The criminal's family could come and visit him or her in jail without any worries of a possible death row.
The criminal chose to harm others by either with intentional or unintentional crimes. It was their free will to choose their own crimes or no crimes at all. No one has told the person to chop up the victim's body and toss it somewhere where no one can find it. No one has said to shot someone in public or a drop-by shooting to sharpen his or her shooting range. Others might disagree because society might have made the person feel unwanted and that he or she thinks no one will respect him or her. The person feels like him or her should get back at society just for revenge. They could feel that life is no good and what better way to not have to pay for anything then to be in jail where everything there is free. Most criminals don't feel sorry for the crimes they have committed. The mostly likely reason is that the criminals feel like they are no longer whom they are. When the criminals are sent to death row, they show no feelings what so ever. It would give them a chance to talk about their views of the world or that the death penalty is unjust. If they think that the death penalty is so wrong, why commit serious crimes in the first place? Could they really be rehabilitated just moments from death that life is worth living?
The death penalty should be removed from use. In the United States, politicians use hard on crime to show that they are tough on criminals who have committed harsh crimes on other human beings. Innocent people might be executed by accident. After days, months, or years later after the person is dead, the court would find the person not guilty of crimes committed by showing proving how innocent the person is. The lawyers or police officers might withhold information that the innocent person shouldn't be sentence to death. For example, in a case of Adam Miranda, where he was sentence wrongfully sentence to death because of in correct information that the victim was innocent. The person could be sentence to death on a based of wrong identity where the innocent person would have to pay for the real murder's crime. People could be sent to death row based on his or her race. Citing bias, justices reject death sentence; High court rules race improperly played a role in jury selection in Louisiana by David G Savage wrote that, "The Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed the death sentence and murder conviction of a black Louisiana inmate on the grounds that racial bias had infected the selection of his jury". It is discriminatory to send someone to death based on the color of his or her skin. Those who are mentally ill could be put to death because it is hard to convince the judge or jury that the person is mentally ill. The criminals will not be rehabilitated because they think that their crime was justified and that they are in the way of what they plan to do. Since that their crime can be intentional. Putting someone on death row doesn't bring the victim back. Others would argue that putting the criminal on death row that we are the same as the criminal in harming human beings.
There will always be a never-ending issue on how effective the death penalty is use. The victims family can never be heal from a broken heart of losing someone very close to them. Killing criminals can be reach into the earliest times of world history. The death penalty can scare some people into not killing someone. There will be no unforeseen conclusion in how cruel the death penalty.
Direction: in a 10-12 page essay, argue about the death penalty. no informational essays (reports) are acceptable. the proposal requires an outline (thesis and main points) and works cited page
The Death Penalty with Many Flaws
In the 18th century B.C., the death penalty was first used in a code called the code of King Hammurabi of Babylon where it lists how a person can be put to death if he or she does not obey the rules. In historical times, when a person is sentence to death, people would throw a stone at the person's head, hanging by the neck, or being drowned. In the 19th century, the laws for the death penalty have change by lowering the crimes that were considering capital punishment. The United States death penalty originated from Great Britain. In the 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the death penalty should be removed from practice. A few years later, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the used of the death penalty. In the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court has rule that it's unconstitutional to kill someone who has mental illness or retardation. The death penalty is the maximum penalty to remove criminals from society, which is controversial.
Many people believe that criminals should die if they murder another human being. Even the bible refers to people who murder others should be punished. Executions are too Costly-Morally by Helen Prejean have stated that,
It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical "proof text" in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes it (649-650).
By killing the criminal, it would save other people from being murder by the same person. All over the world, crimes are being committed, whether it is intentional, unintentional, or with criminal intent of harming others. Depending on the crime the person committed will determine if he or she is sentence to death in countries that offer the death penalty. For example, in California, a man name Scott Peterson was sentence to death for killing his wife. In countries that don't offer the death penalty, the criminals might be sentence to life in prison without parole. How effective is the death penalty? For one thing, it would show that criminals are not wanted in society. Crimes will not go down when someone is put in prison or sentence to death whether or not the countries offer the death penalty. There is always someone there to take away another human being's life or criminals somehow escape from prison with a possibility of harming another human being just to get away. The criminals enjoy the feeling of harming another human being. It gives the criminal a sense of feeling powerful. The criminal could attack again and again until caught. The prisons are built to keep criminals from harming another human being. Prisons help the criminals to not repeat the same crime over again when they are release at the end of their term or on good behavior. However, there are criminals who still commit the same crime over again even upon release. For example, the same rapists would go around and attack women. Once in a while, the rapist would kill the women.
When the criminal shoots someone, the person might receive the death penalty, which is more costly, then life sentence without parole. In the United States, the death penalty costs more then states that don't have the death penalty. For example, in RIGHTS-US: Sky-High Costs - But Few Executions by Carter stated that "Last year, New Jersey, which spent 10.9 million dollars annually on maintaining the death penalty became the first state to abolish the practice since the death penalty was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976". The taxpayers shouldn't have to paid that much money just to keep the criminals in jail where they can receive free health care, food, and whatever else they want before they are put to death. The law is so kind to criminals instead of toward the victims. The money can be better spent for our community to better protect the people. Wouldn't it be better to just put the criminal who has committed a serious crime be sentence to a life without parole? The life sentence costs less and the criminal wouldn't be worrying about whether or not it would be possible to leave jail. The criminal can sit in the jailhouse wondering about their life or feel remorse for their victims. At what cost will we feel to keep criminals lock up? In Supreme Court Decision Brings Focus to Death Penalty Policy by James Clark has stated that, "The largest single expense comes from the extra cost of housing people on death row, which is $90,000 more per year per inmate than general prison housing". There are still over 500 people on death row that still hasn't being put to death but only about a few people have being executed. There could be a possibility that the criminal could die before receiving the death row. In "The Death Penalty," by David Bruck has stated that, "The death penalty states are also learning that the death penalty is easier to advocate than it is to administer" (609). Therefore, the criminal would be better off to die of natural death then to keep the death penalty going.
Yet, the murders have several methods of execution depending on their location in their country to die in a less painful way where it is done in a blink of an eye. The criminals are very lucky because most of the murders they have committed are crimes that are done to victims in a cruel intent that is far more done in unspeakable horror then one could ever imagine or foreseen it. Why don't the criminals who murder the victims in a cruel intent get away with dying less painfully? The United States Constitution protects everyone from cruel and unusual punishment regardless of the criminal action toward his or her victims. Each state that has the death penalty offers at least two different methods of execution. Most states offer lethal injection which first require the criminal to be put to sleep and than injected with a drug call pavulon where it relaxes the body and slowly the person dies. After the criminal who murders the victim passes away, the victim's family can move on. The criminal's family might feel sorry for the victim's family but at the same time would feel hate and anger toward the justice system. However, when the criminal is put in sentence to life in punishment, they could be over come by guilt that it would feel they would wish to apologized to the victim's family for their crime and hoping for forgiveness. The criminal's family could come and visit him or her in jail without any worries of a possible death row.
The criminal chose to harm others by either with intentional or unintentional crimes. It was their free will to choose their own crimes or no crimes at all. No one has told the person to chop up the victim's body and toss it somewhere where no one can find it. No one has said to shot someone in public or a drop-by shooting to sharpen his or her shooting range. Others might disagree because society might have made the person feel unwanted and that he or she thinks no one will respect him or her. The person feels like him or her should get back at society just for revenge. They could feel that life is no good and what better way to not have to pay for anything then to be in jail where everything there is free. Most criminals don't feel sorry for the crimes they have committed. The mostly likely reason is that the criminals feel like they are no longer whom they are. When the criminals are sent to death row, they show no feelings what so ever. It would give them a chance to talk about their views of the world or that the death penalty is unjust. If they think that the death penalty is so wrong, why commit serious crimes in the first place? Could they really be rehabilitated just moments from death that life is worth living?
The death penalty should be removed from use. In the United States, politicians use hard on crime to show that they are tough on criminals who have committed harsh crimes on other human beings. Innocent people might be executed by accident. After days, months, or years later after the person is dead, the court would find the person not guilty of crimes committed by showing proving how innocent the person is. The lawyers or police officers might withhold information that the innocent person shouldn't be sentence to death. For example, in a case of Adam Miranda, where he was sentence wrongfully sentence to death because of in correct information that the victim was innocent. The person could be sentence to death on a based of wrong identity where the innocent person would have to pay for the real murder's crime. People could be sent to death row based on his or her race. Citing bias, justices reject death sentence; High court rules race improperly played a role in jury selection in Louisiana by David G Savage wrote that, "The Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed the death sentence and murder conviction of a black Louisiana inmate on the grounds that racial bias had infected the selection of his jury". It is discriminatory to send someone to death based on the color of his or her skin. Those who are mentally ill could be put to death because it is hard to convince the judge or jury that the person is mentally ill. The criminals will not be rehabilitated because they think that their crime was justified and that they are in the way of what they plan to do. Since that their crime can be intentional. Putting someone on death row doesn't bring the victim back. Others would argue that putting the criminal on death row that we are the same as the criminal in harming human beings.
There will always be a never-ending issue on how effective the death penalty is use. The victims family can never be heal from a broken heart of losing someone very close to them. Killing criminals can be reach into the earliest times of world history. The death penalty can scare some people into not killing someone. There will be no unforeseen conclusion in how cruel the death penalty.
