Is Death Penalty FAIR? Opinion essay.

Prompt: State your opinion of the Death Penalty. Do you think it is a fair punishment?

People opposing to the idea of death penalty think they are on the defense for morals; however, in reality, the actions of these "humanitarians" actually prolong the pain of the inmates and thrust them into a situation comparable to hell. Based on the information provided in the Death Penalty Debate, it is clear that murderers who are sentenced to death should be executed immediately, for both security and moral reasons.

The government has the responsibility to ensure the safety of the people; the duty to implement death penalties shall not be deferred. Since the colonial times, however, the federal and state courts struggle on the legitimacy for death penalties, such as capital punishment and medical injection; recently, some U.S. states had taken a further extreme as to abolish death penalties altogether. Such action is ludicrous. Imagine the liberation of dangerous and homicidal prisoners into your neighborhood. As unpleasant as this idea may appear, it is not impossible. Under the United States Constitution, all prisoners have the right to appeal and attempt to prove their innocence again during their sentences. With immediate death penalties, on the other hand, it helps to minimize the risk of liberating murderous inmates back into the society. According to the Death Penalty Debate, for each inmate put to death, "3 to 18 murders are prevented." This information helps to placate the insecurity of the general public.

It is unjust and ridiculous to use outsider's perspective to decide what is best for inmates. While death penalty may be a cruel and inhumane punishment, life-time sentence may be worse. According to Jack Harry smith, the oldest inmate on Texas' death row, "a life sentence is a whole lot worse" than death penalty; "it's torture." In fact, death penalty is not only a better ruling for inmates, but also a more satisfactory solution for the victim's family. Imagine parents who experience the lost of an endeared one; how can they bear with the idea that, someday, the murderer may be declared a free man? It is not enough to worry only about the physical status of the inmate; opponents of the death penalty should keep in mind the emotional pain the victim's family is enduring. In addition, "humanitarians" use the Constitution's Eighth Amendment, the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment", to argue against death penalty; however, even today, it is still unclear as to where to draw the line between cruel and not cruel. Recently, the Supreme Court declared that death penalty does not apply to raping, but rather restricted to treason or murder. From the decision, it becomes clear that the Court has spent considerable time into determining the appropriate punishments for crimes. It is time for everyone to let go of their personal bias and allow the court to do its job.

The focus toward alleviating the lives of inmates has completely annihilated the true purpose of death penalty. While some misconduct, such as robbery and libel, give the prisoner a second chance, other crimes, such as murder and treason, are irreversible. If one cannot learn to respect other valuable lives that Mother Nature has created, then he or she must pay for the price appropriate to the offense.

I like what you write.It is a good essay and intersting theme.Go ahead

Oh dear. I agree that the death penalty should be carried out much faster than it currently is (if it is going to be kept), and yet even I can't find much to say that's good about your essay.

First, you don't deal with the issue of potential miscarriages of justice if someone should be wrongfully convicted. The reason the U.S. has such long delays between the sentence being handed out and the sentence being executed, as it were, is that it provides plenty of time for new evidence to be dug up, appeals to be filed, etc. You can't just ignore this if you hope to be convincing.

Second, you seem to believe that the alternative to the death penalty is the release of the condemned back into society:


. As in fact convicted murderers can be kept in jail for life, this is not something that is actually likely to happen.

Third, while your argument that life in prison could just as easily be considered as "cruel and inhumane" as the death penalty could potentially be strong, your method of phrasing weakens it, as you approach it from the point of view of the inmates. I assure you, most people, given a choice, take life over death, even if it is life in prison.

Fourth, none of this addresses the actual prompt, which is whether or not the death penalty is "fair." To do this, you would have to look at whether it is just to take the life of someone who has committed murder (Hint: the answer is pretty clearly yes, under just about any definition of justice that hasn't been tortured by a philosopher specifically trying to defend the abolition of capital punishment). You would also have to look at whether it would be just to execute someone for a crime that did not involve killing (treason, rape). This becomes a harder argument to make. Finally, you might also look at the way the death penalty is actually applied in your country. Some argue that the racial imbalances in the U.S. in the application of the death penalty, for instance, make the death penalty unjust. The argument isn't a very good one, but you probably should deal with it. Also, you will still need to look at the issue of the possibility that the wrongfully accused might be sentenced to death.