In USA the death penalty also cost a lot of many than the imprisonment life because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process. The website Deathpenalty.org shares the cost studies in California, “In 2011, California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment. California spends an additional $184 million on the death penalty per year because of the additional costs of capital trials, enhanced security on death row, and legal representation. The study’s authors predict that the cost of the death penalty will reach $9 billion by 2030” ("The High Cost of the Death Penalty"). Why government wants to expend too much many in death penalty? Why they don’t use this money to give more assist for the people who really need it? Citizens know that the government uses their taxes to pay executions? The answer is that the government doesn’t ask citizens in which case they prefer that their taxes will be used because many people don’t know that the costs of the executions are carried by the cost of taxpayers. Those who propose the death penalty asserts in the costs of executions are less than life imprisonment. According to Vera Institute of Justice “Among 40 states that participated in a survey, the cost of prisons was $39 billion in fiscal year” (Henrichson and Delaney). The cost of imprisonment shows for Vera Institute compare to the cost of the death penalty each year the number of executions are going down in the last year 2015 they were 28 executions and the government expended millions of dollars just for a minimum quantity of persons (Henrichson and Delaney). Compare to the quantity of money that government expends is for 1574700 prisoners in each prison (Kedmey).
The other side has argued that death penalty is the perfect way to stop future crimes. But the death penalty is not the best way to punish someone. The person who did the crime needs to have time to reflect on their actions. If this person is going to be executed it will be easier for him because he won’t have time to regret what happened. Life imprisonment could be the best way because this person will value their life and especially others. In prison the criminal is going to be excluded from the world and this will be their major punishment. Also, what about the government? Does Government want everyone to become assassins? Yes, if they allow the death penalty because they do the same. They end a life.
Works Cited
"Deterrence." Death Penalty Focus. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
Henrichson, Christian, and Ruth Delaney. "The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers." Vera Institute of Justice. N.p., 29 Feb. 2012. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
"The High Cost of the Death Penalty." Death Penalty Focus . N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
"I Want to Live in Safe Community without the Death Penalty." Death Penalty Focus. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
"Innocent and Condemned to Die: The Story of Greg Wilhoit." Death Penalty Focus . N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
Kedmey, Dam. "U.S. Prison Population Expands For the First Time in 3 Years." Time. Time, 16 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 May 2016.
"Law Enforcement Views on Deterrence." Death Penalty Information Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
"Should a Death Penalty Moratorium Be Implemented?" ProCon.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
*****
Death Penalty
Lucia Rutherfurd
Imagine a mother with her baby sauntering until unfortunately find the wrong person, she has no idea that this person had just beating her to death and then raping her and her only 6 months old. Perhaps, this guy deserves to live? Not because anyone could walk by without knowing what it is capable of, since they appear to be normal people, but really are? It is hard to know since no one know what is in the mind of every person, nor science knows what he may be able the human brain. Such people are a danger to society because they are not normal, the only solution is to remove bone apply the death penalty, because neither jail nor the mental hospital will be able to change them, because they are also a danger to other inmates or for the most defenseless people such as those suffering mental illness. The death penalty is not bad if used responsibly.
The death penalty is now very necessary to fight crime today in many European countries no longer have prisons because they had terrorized the population for many years. There are many religions as Christian (Catholic), Pope Francis gave a statement against the Death Penalty "today the death penalty is inadmissible, because serious has been the crime of the condemned. It is an offense to the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person that contradicts God's plan for man and society and merciful justice, and prevents comply with any just purpose of penalties. it does justice to the victims, but encourages revenge”(Zenit) and it's true no one can judge or say who should live and who die, no one can put God's shoes but anyone can put in the shoes of the mother who lost her child, not revenge, is to eliminate a threat.
On the other hand claim that the death penalty is inhumane and that many people die unjustly, last year a study showing that in a group of 25 people one of them was innocent [Just in US] with which became famous was conducted phrase "in a legal system, there are always mistakes, and there are many innocent people in jail to be executed. Imagine that you are a parent of a death row inmate innocent.”(Aclu) .Supposedly it is inhumane to kill someone, then it is more humane to let someone locked up for life in deplorable conditions because in Third mostly in Latin America countries do not give them no food, exposed to be violated or be killed, that's supposedly more 'human', and it is also more human a mother bringing flowers to his son in the cemetery fence a sad mother to visit her son who is rotting in jail , “I'd rather kill 10 criminals , that they kill 10 innocent” (Fidel Castro).
On the other hand it has been argued that the death penalty is neither fair nor safe because they kill many innocent people and that is inhumane because no one has the right to take the life of another person. And it's a little true, but the death of a murderer or a 'person' can be prevented 10 cases of homicide. Unfortunately in many countries from like Latino America, Africa, Asia, there are not many free criminals because there are no good laws, the only solution is to exterminate them.
Works Cited
Zenit. “Pope’s Letter to International Commission Against the Death Penalty”. N.p., 20 Mar. 2015. Wed. 04 Mar. 2016
Aclu. “The Case Against the Death Penalty”. N.p., n.d. Sun. 01 Mar. 2016
La Ruplica. “Filden Castro: La Condena de Muerte”. N.p., n.d. Mon. 02 Mar. 2016
*****
Death Penalty
Pessi Lansirinne
Picture a man captive in an electric chair. A painful screw is mortgaged to his head, his eyes are covered, and he can’t move. Suddenly 10,000 volts are connected to his body. He suffers and his body gets hot. But it takes many tries and a long time until he collapses down and dies. This man had killed somebody. If the government says that killing is wrong, why does the government have the right to kill? Every year hundreds of people have been killed by capital punishment in United States (Rogers). How many times in history wrong person was killed? Who does the killing? Do the criminals really deserve it?
The other side might say that death penalty keeps other criminals from killing. They say that criminals are scared to kill if there is the risk that they could get killed themselves. This should make the country a safer and better place to live. This is not true. According to the webpage Debatepedia the death penalty doesn’t really make other people scared to kill. Edward Koch, former mayor of New York City tell a story, “Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of...murderers, they might well have stayed their hand. They might have shown moral awareness before their victims died...Consider the tragic death of Rosa Velez, who happened to be home when a man named Luis Vera burglarized her apartment in Brooklyn. ‘Yeah, I shot her,’ Vera admitted. ...’And I knew I wouldn't go to the chair’” ("Debate: Death Penalty"). A very small percentage of the people who had planned a murder hesitated because of the death penalty.
Many people are able to change themselves and they can learn from their mistakes.
Everybody should be given another chance. Every year humans, who really regret their actions, are killed by terrible and miserable ways. Two thirds of the countries in a world have abolished the death penalty reasoning it’s against humanity ("Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries"). The other side says it’s certified that many criminals commit another crime after they have been punished once. In their opinion it’s better to kill one person than let the same person commit a crime many times. According to the webpage Telegraph, Andrew Dawson first killed in 1981 and was sentenced to life – only to be released in 2010, whereupon he killed two men living near his home in Derby (Johnston). It’s true than some people can’t change themselves but some people can. Why a life sentence that is really not a life sentence? What stops the government form changing it? What comes to the Dawson’s case? It is just a single case and doesn’t mean that something like that could happen really often. The fact that many criminals commit another crime when they get free is true, but it’s also fact that the second crimes aren’t often anything serious. People who get free kill again really rarely. At least removing the death penalty would save many people’s lives who area already suffering and regretting.
The strongest argument of the people supporting capital punishment is the cost. The guards’ salary and fulfilling basic needs make keeping criminals in prison expensive. According to webpage Heraldextra.com, the cost can be over 50,000 dollars a year for twenty years ("The Cost of Life in Prison"). However, the death penalty can be much more expensive. After committing the violation, criminals wait for the punishment for many years. Uncle Sam has to spend the same $50,000 in a year for about ten years just to keep people waiting for the possible death. The webpage Death Penalty Info tells that death penalty is more expensive than a life sentence, “A Seattle University study examining the costs of the death penalty in Washington found that each death penalty case cost an average of $1 million more than a similar case where the death penalty was not sought ($3.07 million, versus $2.01 million)” ("Costs of the Death Penalty").
Without the death penalty, the man in the electric chair could still be alive. He could sit in a prison regretting and suffering because of his actions. His own children could still see their daddy and the government could pay much less. He could change himself and, someday, after a long time, he and his family could enjoy their lives together. There aren’t any good arguments for death penalty, are there? Hopefully the US will soon abolish the death penalty and join the other two thirds of the countries in the world who have already abolished capital punishment.
Works Cited
"Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries." Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries. N.p., 31 Dec. 2014. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
"The Cost Of Life In Prison." KPBS Public Media. N.p., 10 Jan. 2010. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
"Costs of the Death Penalty." Costs of the Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
"Debate: Death Penalty." - Debatepedia, Debate on Capital Punishment. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
Johnston, Philip. "Who Lets Murderers out of Jail to Kill Again?" The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
Rogers, Simon. "Death Penalty Statistics from the US: Which State Executes the Most People?" The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 21 Sept. 2011. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
"Study: Washington Death Penalty Cases Cost $1M Extra - HeraldNet.com." The Daily Herald. N.p., 7 Jan. 2015. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
*****
Gun Control
Riku Araki
The tragedy happens every single day. Case of gun crime increases each year. It hardly seems worth the energy to once again make the same essential point that the President. He believes if gun control would be more powerful, gun violence will finish. However, some people claimed his argument by demonstration. They are necessary guns in order to protect themselves, but is it? Gun is, of course, a weapon and it would be defensive power. However, it also would attack and hurt people. Currency, most case of massacre was used guns. A lot of people were killed every day by guns. The 2nd amendment assures people can have guns in order to protect themselves, but it also true that guns causes of more violence and crimes now. Thus, gun ought to control under the law. This will make the people of the United States happy and peaceful life.
In the US, there are plenty gun crimes happened. Especially, it occurs at the school. Then, a lot of precious lives had lost due to the gun criminal. The gun crime increases every each year. According to the Los Angeles Post, “the frequency of attack has picked up since the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., where 20 first- graders and six adults were gunned down” (Vartabedian). Most gun massacre occurred at school which means gun criminal aims to attack school because teacher and students don’t have defensive power when they in the school. Those who oppose gun control law argue that gun criminal has been attacked at weak places. Thus, that should be armed. “Massacres happen where the targets of mass-shooters congregate (schools, government buildings, workplaces, etc.) and the potential for people in those locations to be armed is simply not a deterrent to these shooters” (Sager). The data shows rate of gun crime occurred at school, church, and weak places. If those places are armed, people will not be hurt or killed by lawbreaker. Mass shooting would decrease when weak places are able to be armed. Also, children would be safe at school. However, that will face more gun violence because there are a lot of guns in school which means school is not safe.
The other sides asserts that gun deaths would be the same rates with the car accidents of dead or it kills more people every year then guns. Cars are not prohibited by law if it is the most cause of dead because cars are necessary in order as transportation system. They say that’s is not fair. If the government advances the gun control, cars also are limited by law. All of gun owner has a license. It is the exact same with the car license. “Before anybody is able to buy a gun, they should be required to get firearms training, become certified through a state licensing process, get insurance for potential damages that their weapons may inflict, and register each and every one of their weapons with the state.” (Sager). It doesn’t make sense. Actually, gun deaths would be the same rates with the car accidents deaths. However, these are totally different because the car accidents are real accident. Gun shooting make people to hurt on purpose. Car driver didn’t want to kill anybody. Gun shooter wanted to kill people. These are the same rates. That is unbelievable because people would like to kill someone by gun as the same rates of car accidents. According to the Washington Post, “Gun deaths and vehicle deaths are in many ways two different problems. Gun deaths are typically intentional -- people deliberately kill either themselves or someone else. Motor vehicle deaths, by contrast, are usually accidental. And cars are much more complicated machines than guns, with a lot more components and systems to iterate and improve upon” (Ingraham). Most people are using cars and there are a lot of them in the US. Therefore, the accidents would happen. Although, mass shooting should not happen if they really want to kill somebody. Gun deaths would be the same rates with car accident deaths, but it isn’t.
The other side argues the government should not make the gun control law. Although, the truth is mass shootings increases each years and most massacre used guns. Most citizens can buy guns easily if they want. Gun violence would not decrease if the government haven’t passed the gun control law. The United States must pass it no matter what people argue about it. Hopefully, the US government establish the strong gun control law, trust it makes to decrease the amount of dead people.
*****
Gun Control
Christ Frank
Turn on the TV after wake up and see the channel news. A mass shooting at a school killing innocent kids? A handgun found in a college student’s backpack? Or a crazy man with any kind of illness that can easily just go outside and start shooting. Guns are the author of another mass killing at a vulnerable place as a school, work, or even the street where a lot of people pass thro
ugh every day. Lives that could be saved with just passing some gun control laws from the government of United States in order to protect and maintain safe their own citizens. Yes, the people have the right to own a gun in order to feel save and protection of themselves as the 2nd amendment tell us in the constitution. But also think about this; is it true that more guns in the field will make people feel safer? Or it will create more violence as it could be seen now?.
Guns control laws will be the first step in order to control how easy guns can be bought these days, according to the Washington post “Mass killings in the United States are most often carried out with guns, usually handguns, most of them obtained legally, out of 241 guns, 138 were obtained legally, and 39 were obtained illegally” (PÉrez-peÑa). This means that most of the mass shootings are carried out with guns that have been obtained legally by any person who can afford to buy them. More gun control laws in United States will keep violence away from any innocent people on the field. “As an example the tragedy at Virginia Tech may tell us something about how a young man could be driven to commit terrible actions, but it does not teach us very much about gun control” (Berkowitz). Even if people say they need to carry a gun just for the feeling of safeness, there will be a person outside trying to hurt other people. This is something that the federal government should be concern about because they cannot guaranteed save every single person live with just taking a gun away or getting the shooter into the jail because that live will be lost by then.