eing kind of
hypocritical when they say taking a human life is bad, but then they go ahead
and do exactly the opposite of what they are saying? One of the axiomatic
questions erected is: "Whether the death penalty is more effective than
life-time imprisonment?". Also, is it an effective deterrent to future violent
Defenders point out that since taking a life is more severe than any
sentence imaginable, it must be the right and just thing to do. Public opinion
in the United States supports it by more than a 2 to 1 ratio. They, also, point
out that there is no other adequate hindrance in life imprisonment that is
effective for those who commit heinous crimes inside or outside of the prison
walls. On the flip side of the coin, the opposers say that in adjacent states in
which one has it and one doesn't, there is no long term significant differences
in murder rates and amplitude. Also, and this seems hard to believe, but
states that use the death penalty actually show higher murder numbers than
states that do not. When a local execution occurs, the murder rates do not
fluctuate at all, they stay the same.
There are literally thousands of ways to kill someone or something.
But only about 10 of those are used in conjunction with the death penalty,
itself. Many of those thousand are considered barbaric and uncivilized by
today's standards . There are usually specific procedures for each execution
method, to ensure a quick and painless death.
There are nine methods of execution that I will now discuss. The first
is crucifixion. Crucifixion was most likely first used in the 6th century B.C.
and was last used in approximately the 4th century A.D. Most notably, it was
used on Jesus Christ in the year 33 A.D. It is where the person is nailed to a
cross for as many hours as it takes them to die from loss of blood. The
second is boiling in oil. Boiling in oi...