Death penalty

Causes
Knowing all this information, why do people think it is necessary to use the death penalty to correct or improve society? Ernest van Den Haag, a death penalty supporter, said: “ Each case is different. While some are quite immature, others are quite mature.” He thinks that those boys who are mature and have been able to let the feeling of responsibility be a part of their life, should be punished, because they can be on the thinking level as many adults. Others think that it is only fair to want revenge. Those people think it is only fair for the family of the murdered person that the murderer gets murdered as well. According to those that is the way society should be handled; if I hit you, then you may hit me back. Although many don’t think that, they see the death penalty as a fair trial for the family and a good way of preventing the society. But when one asks them what they would do if somebody would hit them, they would almost all say they would talk to a solution first. Then there are those who are more sensitive and emotional and think that locking up a person for lifetime is more cruel than killing instantly. “ Most murders are committed by very young people. Immunizing them against the death penalty means that they will be able to murder again in prison and out; further, the group most inclined to murder- male youths- would not be threatened with the most sever penalty” (Van Den Haag 83).

Solutions
The world has provided different solutions, some are to replace the death penalty, others to make it fairer, so cases as Graham wouldn’t leave questions. The most important recent improvement evolved because of the growth of the knowledge of technology. New technology has produced a process called DNA testing, which I assume you all have heard at least a little bit about. With this DNA, tests show whether very personal property from the killer found on the victim, such as blood and hair belongs to the accused person. But this is also not always accurate. Sometimes somebody who has met the victim just before he or she was murdered could have left a trace such as a lost hair. To replace the death penalty some cases end up in lifetime imprisonment, or other punishments in which the victim has either a change to prove its innocence or learn from what he/she has done. Critics like Victor R. Streibe, who is an opponent of the death penalty, would argue that the death penalty for juveniles does not act as a deterrent to them, and should be abolished. He stated: “Harsh punishments for violent crimes are only temporary band-aid solutions, with the only long-term solutions coming from cleaning up the neighborhood, schools, and societal structures that continue to generate such violent teenagers.” Instead of investing more money in the actual execution, maybe it’s time to invest money in the neighborhoods where it is necessary (Streibe 5). There are world wide and national organizations such as Amnesty International and ACLU who promote the awareness of the effects of the death penalty. They are against the death penalty and try to convince others to become so as well. Their organizations grow every day because of this awareness and people who support their ideas. To make people recognize what is really going on in the world they try educate as much as possible. Amnesty International, for example, is a part of the society lessons taught in Europe. In those lessons they learn how to be a part of society, and how they and others react to certain events. Teaching children is a very important since they are the future leaders. Other things such organizations do are protest, provide information on events and collect signatures. “The execution of a juvenile offender is contrary to fundamental principles of American justice which punishes according to the degree of culpability and reserves the death penalty for the worst of the worst offenders. By their very nature, teenagers are less matures, and therefore less culpable, than adults who commit similar acts but have no such explanation for their conduct- adolescence is a transitional period of life when cognitive abilities, emotions, judgment, impulse, control, and identity are still developing. Indeed, immaturity is the reason we do not allow those under 18 to assume the major responsibilities of adulthood such as military combat service, voting, entering into contracts, drinking alcohol, or making medical decisions. A number of organizations urge that the execution for a crime committed while a juvenile is simply unacceptable in a civilized society” (Urgent Alert 3) This is a very important reason why the death penalty should be abolished. If not, the government should consider those major responsibilities of adulthood.

My solution
It is not part of the government’s obligation to kill people in cold blood. Whether a person already killed somebody or not, the death penalty a broader way of seeing what we learns as children to be wrong. You don’t hit back when somebody hits you, you try to solve it first, and then you seek for help if it doesn’t work. The death penalty is doing the opposite; it’s hitting back. Only this hit is so fatal, that the “victim” has no change of ever trying to do something good to you so you will forgive him for what he had done wrong once. And not one study has shown that the method of killing is more effective in society than giving them a change to do something right. In fact the opposite is true, because research suggests that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. 80 % of experts from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association who did a study on the death penalty for juveniles “believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty” (questions and answers 2). Instead the root of the problem needs to be worked on. As Victor Streibe suggested, the problem should be dealt with in the places where it is caused, families, schools and neighborhoods. Those are the places that make the difference in a child’s behavior and future life. Therefore more education should be provided, because education is a key to intelligence. In the upper schools, information about the death penalty with causes and effects, such as the Amnesty International program in Europe, would be a good start. Their subject would be to discuss the issues caused by the death penalty and without it, because they will be the future voters, they are the one who can make a change in this system. Since Bush became governor in Texas, “he never used his power to grant a 30- day vote reprieve even not in cases which concerned a possible innocence”. My only solution about this problem is very simply, but very effective; don’t vote for Bush. If he becomes the president, think of what would happen to the USA. Keep in mind those numbers from Texas; what if you are suddenly accused of a murder? Bush isn’t going to save you. The government is supposed to set the right example for society. And by killing its children, it’s saying that it is ok to take revenge. The government should set the right example by not killing, because that is what executing is, its children. Everybody deserves a second chance in life. The benefit of the government not doing so is that it shows the people of the United States of America they have a system of justice in which they can believe.

My solution
It is not part of the government’s obligation to kill people in cold blood. Whether a person already killed somebody or not, the death penalty a broader way of seeing what we learns as children to be wrong. You don’t hit back when somebody hits you, you try to solve it first, and then you seek for help if it doesn’t work. The death penalty is doing the opposite; it’s hitting back. Only this hit is so fatal, that the “victim” has no change of ever trying to do something good to you so you will forgive him for what he had done wrong once. And not one study has shown that the method of killing is more effective in society than giving them a change to do something right. In fact the opposite is true, because research suggests that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. 80 % of experts from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association who did a study on the death penalty for juveniles “believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty” (questions and answers 2). Instead the root of the problem needs to be worked on. As Victor Streibe suggested, the problem should be dealt with in the places where it is caused, families, schools and neighborhoods. Those are the places that make the difference in a child’s behavior and future life. Therefore more education should be provided, because education is a key to intelligence. In the upper schools, information about the death penalty with causes and effects, such as the Amnesty International program in Europe, would be a good start. Their subject would be to discuss the issues caused by the death penalty and without it, because they will be the future voters, they are the one who can make a change in this system. Since Bush became governor in Texas, “he never used his power to grant a 30- day vote reprieve even not in cases which concerned a possible innocence”. My only solution about this problem is very simply, but very effective; don’t vote for Bush. If he becomes the president, think of what would happen to the USA. Keep in mind those numbers from Texas; what if you are suddenly accused of a murder? Bush isn’t going to save you. The government is supposed to set the right example for society. And by killing its children, it’s saying that it is ok to take revenge. The government should set the right example by not killing, because that is what executing is, its children. Everybody deserves a second chance in life. The benefit of the government not doing so is that it shows the people of the United States of America they have a system of justice in which they can believe.