All Nonfiction
- Bullying
- Books
- Academic
- Author Interviews
- Celebrity interviews
- College Articles
- College Essays
- Educator of the Year
- Heroes
- Interviews
- Memoir
- Personal Experience
- Sports
- Travel & Culture
All Opinions
- Bullying
- Current Events / Politics
- Discrimination
- Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking
- Entertainment / Celebrities
- Environment
- Love / Relationships
- Movies / Music / TV
- Pop Culture / Trends
- School / College
- Social Issues / Civics
- Spirituality / Religion
- Sports / Hobbies
All Hot Topics
- Bullying
- Community Service
- Environment
- Health
- Letters to the Editor
- Pride & Prejudice
- What Matters
- Back
Summer Guide
- Program Links
- Program Reviews
- Back
College Guide
- College Links
- College Reviews
- College Essays
- College Articles
- Back
Should The Death Penalty Be Banned? MAG
There are many things in this society which should be banned, but the death penalty is not one of them. It is definitely the right way to go as far as capital discipline is concerned. Right now in our country, I find it outrageous that criminals think that they can get away with just about anything. In some states, including Alabama, the death penalty has helped them lower the rate of violent crimes. We need some form of capital punishment to send a message to career criminals that they will not get away with these severe crimes.
The death penalty would also make people more secure. In some countries of South America and the Far East, they have very severe penalties, including flogging, for even minor crimes. People in some areas of our nation feel they cannot walk around or step outside their houses for fear of criminals. In other countries, however, you would rarely see laws being broken because the penalties are so stern. The United States is one of the most lenient countries in the world as far as discipline. If we had the death penalty, all people would be able to use the streets even in troubled areas.
Another reason we should use this is to set an example to all criminals. Some criminals who have committed many violent crimes (robbery, rape, and murder) are walking the streets like normal citizens because we are much too lenient on them. If the death penalty is instituted, there would not be as many daring and violent crimes as there are presently. Our present laws are much too "soft" on criminals. We need to get stricter.
In closing, I would like to add that this law would make a major difference. It would make our streets safer, people more secure, and make a better world to live in. The death penalty is a definite plus for our society as a whole.
What do you think? ?
Similar Articles
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
This article has 173 comments.
Nope. It's fine, I contradict myself all the time.
Most people are surprised when I say that. I guess it is an appropriate response. But I can't imagine making another family go through what I would be going through. And you can say whatever you want, I am (usually :)) not a judgmental person.
Sounds good. I do apologize for being contradictory though.
I'm actually really surprised. Most people wouldn't really care about the other family. Honestly? Because you said no, I feel like I can't say anything else without sounding like a completely cold and heartless person..
Actually, it is a proven fact that crime rates have not decreased with the death penalty in effect.
Also, don't worry about the "there/their/they're" thing. Bunches of people on here do worse. :)
Let's just forget about the contradictory comment, shall we? :)
About the scenario you gave me... I would not want the stranger to die. Depending on the way they murdered my mother, they would either get life, life with no parole, or death sentence. I would want them to get life with no parole or just life. Even if it was my own mom, I would not want the murderer dead. I couldn't bear living with the knowledge that another family was grieving as much as I was. So even if you put it that way, I simply cannot agree.
I think I'm missing something really obvious because I read it a few times and I still don't see how it's contradictory. Please help me. =)
I'm not saying you did say that; I'm merely pointing it out. Let's take it from another perspective: what if your mom was the one killed, and it was by a stranger. Would you want that stranger to go to jail and have the possibility of getting out one day, or would you want them to receive the death penalty?
I'm confused as to how I'm contradicting myself. Could you explain for me? (Not to sound mean either; just curious.)
Honestly, I don't think 46 executions in a country as big as ours spanning a whole year is a lot. It's not like we're killing murderers just for the fun of it; each criminal gets a fair trial (as fair as it can be).
No matter what the details of the case were, the point of the example was to point out how the family members would feel. In this case, the details aren't supremely important (even though I know I'm the one who brought them up, sorry about that). My point on this (which I didn't make tremendously clear) is that the vast majority of criminals have people who love them, but that doesn't excuse them for their crimes.
Ahh. The lovely death penalty discussion. My whole English class got into a heated debate on this topic. There are 20 students in my English class and all but one is for the death penalty. I believe that the death penalty should not be banned. I'm all for it. The people who do the crimes have a choice. Not to perform the crime(s) or to perform the crime(s). When they choose to perform the crime they are also choosing to accept the discipline they receive. Even if they really don't consider them. Therefore if they are faced with the death penalty then they are faced with the death penalty. It is THERE fault. Not anybody elses. NOBODY can force another person to do something else. Even if they do have a gun pointed at their head. They can fall as low as the criminal or they can die with dignity.
Crime rates WOULD decrease if the death penalty wasn't banned. It did before and (if possible) it will again.
I see where you are both coming from, and I don't know enough about our court systems to know what kind of sentence the mom would get, but I do want to point out that she made a choice. Yes, her husband cheated on her. Yes, the neighbor was in on it. But she was the one who decided to kill the neighbor. If she regrets it and her judgment was impaired at the time, her sentence will probably be lighter. But if she fully backs her decision, why shouldn't she receive the full consequences of her crime.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." You've heard that phrase, right? Good. What if we did take an eye for an eye (in the literal sense)? Sure, at the beginning, a few people will be blind because their eyes were taken or they took another's eyes. But after a bit, people will realize that when they take others' eyes, they will lose their eyes, so most people will stop taking eyes. And the world can see again. Not everyone will stop, but some people who normally would have will think twice. But into a metaphorical sense with a life for a life, and it should work the same way.
oops. I guess I should have made sure I spelled that right, but still it is not the spelling that really counts in my post. It was the point I was trying to make
"Why in his right mind (if he had one..." All people have minds. So don't say that. And some murderers do care about the person they killed... It may have been a suicide pact gone wrong or something of that sort. And in a way, murderers do care about the people they killed. They cared enough to pay attention to kill them (that is twisted logic indeed, but still true).
And by the way, your comment had nothing to do with the conversation that was going on here. Stick to replying to comments with replies that are actually relevant, please.
1 article 0 photos 324 comments
Favorite Quote:
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." - MLK Jr.