Death Penalty

I shall argue in favour of the death penalty. I present my opening arguments: It is the ultimate warning to criminals: Many would be criminals who premeditate murder would be less inclined to commit it. Although in some cases the murder is not premeditated, would be criminals would be less inclined to go and commit crimes if they knew that the justice system would not stop at putting them to death. The death penalty would also act as a deterrent to any would be criminals as the penalty would make them realise that ultimately they would lose their life after committing murder, and thus making them reconsider even committing the crime in the first place. It provides more closure to victims than a prison sentence: When the murderer kills the victim they are ultimately ruining the lives of the family and friends of the victim, their grief begins with the victims murder and may not end with the murderer's execution but the execution does generate a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal,a feeling which often fails to arise while the murderer is still alive. A system in place for the purpose of granting justice cannot do so for the surviving victims, unless the murderer them-self is put to death. It is all criminals fear: If one were to read about Ted Bundy's time in prison one would find he spent his nine years on death row trying to avoid execution, you will see that Bundy and his lawyers exhausted every legal point they could think of to spare him execution. He often "defended" himself in prison interviews by blaming pornography for his tendency to see women as objects. He attempted to have his sentence changed to life without parole claiming that he would have been a good person if pornography had not existed. After this strategy failed he began to confess to where he buried missing victim's bodies, so that their families could receive closure, he never once showed remorse for his crimes, he obviously feared death and would do anything to avoid it. He also did not fear life imprisonment, at least not as much as he feared the death penalty. Many would be killers would not have committed their terrible crimes out of fear of capital punishment. It is the best answer to murder: The justice system basically attempts to hand out punishment that fits the crime. Severe crimes result in imprisonment. Petty theft is not treated with the severity that is meted to grand theft auto, and the latter, consequently, receives more time in prison. So if severe, but non-lethal violence toward another is found deserving of life without parole, then why should premeditated homicide be given the very same punishment? This fact might induce a would-be criminal to go ahead and kill the victim he has already mugged and crippled. Why would it matter, after all? His sentence could not get any worse. If murder is the wilful deprivation of a victim"s right to life, then the justice system"s wilful deprivation of the criminal"s right to the same is, even if overly severe a punishment which fits the most severe crime that can be committed. Without capital punishment, it could be argued that the justice system makes no provision in response to the crime of murder, and thus provides no justice for the victim or their family. Sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk...