Capital Punishment Research
Whenever the word "death penalty" comes up, extremists from both sides of the spectrum begin to wildly express their opinions. One side says deterrence, the other side says there's a potential of executing an innocent man. One says justice, retribution, and punishment, the other side says execution is murder. However, all arguments aside, the best way and the only way to truly make a rational decision about capital punishment is to examine the purpose of our criminal justice system. Once the purpose of the criminal justice system is established, one must find out the purpose of capital punishment. This paper will show that the purpose of capital punishment is consistent with and embodies the purpose of the criminal justice system. Then, this paper will determine whether or not the present form of the death penalty is fulfilling its purpose, and what could be changed to make the death penalty more efficient and effective. The first question that must be faced is, "What is the purpose of the criminal justice system and does the death penalty help to fulfill that purpose?" In The Law, Frederic Bastiat says that humans have inalienable rights that existed outside of and before government. These rights are life, liberty,
Yet, if six percent of all murders can be stopped, and forty-five lives can be saved every year just in North Carolina alone, who wants to be responsible for the forty-five unnecessary deaths that occur each year because our government does not take care of the murderers the first time around? The death penalty can save lives by stopping repeat murderers, but does it deter murder? Opponents of the death penalty argue that there is no deterrent effect. The Supreme Court had ruled that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment in the way that it was being carried out. After this occurs and the murderer is sentenced to die, his case is automatically appealed to the state Supreme Court. Of course, there is a possibility of wrongly sending an innocent man to prison, or wrongly fining an innocent man, but they contend that because of the finality and severity of the death penalty, the consequences of wrongly executing an innocent person are much more unjust. Instead of mandatory death sentence, juries would decide what sentence to give. However, even if the death penalty were racist, the solution is to fix the discrimination not to end the punishment. Another point to be made is that our judicial system takes many precautions to ensure that the rights of the innocent are protected. In order to understand what form capital punishment is in now we will consider the history and constitutionality of the death penalty. Zant, the court ruled that the death penalty was not racist in its application. Given the benefits of capital punishment, it is hard to imagine why anyone would be against it, but there are several arguments against the death sentence that need to be addressed. The purpose our entire criminal justice system is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property for all its citizens. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in the way that it was being implemented.
Common topics in this essay:
McClesky Zant,
Lockett Ohio,
Hyam Barshay,
Frederic Bastiat,
North Carolina,
Supreme Court,
Wesley Lowe,
Markman Cassal,
,
death penalty,
Penalty Statistics,
first-degree murder,
criminal justice,
justice system,
criminal justice system,
capital punishment,
north carolina,
homicide rate,
opponents death,
second-degree murder,
opponents death penalty,
purpose criminal justice,
innocent person,
supreme court ruled,
court ruled death,
|
Acceptance Essays
