The death penalty is good for two things, in my opinion.  The first is that the offender is literally incapable of killing anyone else, because they are no longer with us.  The second is that the State does not have to burden the taxpayers with the costs of incarceration.  Getting some of the killers off of the streets, and out of life in general, is a good thing.  Then again, if two or more killers pop up in place of the offender that has been put to death, you have a problem on your hands.

The bottom line is that society does not want to take that chance that someone who killed once, will kill again.  So we kill off the perpetrator of the crime, in that we do not have to deal with the same individual killing someone 25 years from now.  How do we go about addressing crime in the United States?  We put more cops on the streets, we keep more people in jail, for longer periods of time, we make it easier to get incarcerated, we build more prisons.

Now there is some bleeding heart somewhere that is going to suggest that rehabilitation will address crime.  Well that may or may not help those that have already committed a crime in the first place.  We have a prison-industrial complex in this country, which means that our economy is dependent, upon prisons being built, people going to jail, lawyers, judges, cops, and everyone else whose fate this perpetrator is in the hands of. 

We are not getting tough on crime.  What we are doing, is making a business off of crime, at the other end, which means that while perpetrators of crime are doing their best to hold onto whatever profits they gain from illegal activities, we are doing our best, to take them down once they reach the pinnacle of their success, so we can make that money off of them through the penal system, at the hands of the taxpayer.  If we really wanted to, we could arrest that drug dealer when they make that first sale, we could arrest that prostitute when she turns that first trick, we could arrest that White collar criminal when evidence of the con that they are running surfaces for the first time.  But we do not do that in America, we let people get big, and score big as they take that long fall back to reality. 

I would be in favor of the death penalty if men were actually being killed for the crimes that they committed.  However, too many innocent men are being killed.  On top of this, is the fact that those who are killed, are not really suffering at the hands of a true sentence; death is certain, dealing with a prison sentence is not.  Someone that does not care about their life, that does not have respect for human life, could care less if you put them to sleep. 

The murder of Stephen Lawrence took place on Dickinson Road at around 10:30pm-10:35pm 22nd April 1993. Witnesses say that the attack was short and only lasted 15-20 seconds.  The assault was committed by 5-6 white youths; they had quickly crossed the road and stabbed Lawrence twice, once in the chest and once in the arm. Both stab wounds cut major arteries which led him to lose a lot of blood. There have been many reasons why these youths were never convicted. Even though there were 3 witnesses none of them were able to identify them. When inspector Steven Groves arrived at the scene he administered no first aid to Lawrence. The metropolitan were institutionally racist. There are many more which I am going to explain.

Why They Weren’t Convicted

The first reason I’m going to explain is the fact that police did not respond to the locals who were telling them who attacked Lawrence. The police had claimed that there was a wall of silence even though more than 20 people had called in about the case. When they finally did listen it was too late as it took several days to arrest suspects. This means no one has been convicted for the murder of Stephen Lawrence because this gave the youth’s time to think of a plan and hide evidence

The second reason why nobody has been convicted is that the inspector who was first to the scene did not give Lawrence any first aid. If he had this might not have been a murder case but an attempted murder case. The reason why he did not give him first aid was supposedly because Stephen was a black man. This means no one has been convicted for the murder of Stephen Lawrence because the police officer could have saved Stephen Lawrence.

If police had searched the houses properly and listened to what the locals had been saying about where to look they could have found vital evidence. A piece of vital evidence such as the knife could have been found under the floor boards but the police did not check this. This means no one has been convicted for the murder of Stephen Lawrence because they could have found more incriminating evidence if they had searched the houses properly.

After the police failed the Lawrence family made their own private prosecution against the 6 youths in April 1994. But in the end it had the same outcome. They could not be prosecuted due to lack of evidence and Stephen’s friend, Dwayne Brooks’ identification evidence was inadmissible this was because he had earlier said that he did not see the attacker’s faces.     

My Conclusion                                                                                                                                                     I think the main reason why nobody was convicted was the fact that the police made so many mistakes.  If the officer had given first aid there would have been no murder. They didn’t listen to the public on the first few days about the suspects. Police didn’t thoroughly check the houses where they could have found the murder weapon.

      This is article’s main purpose is just to express my opinion of how humane we really are.

Image by brizzle born and bred via Flickr                                      

   Penalties Are  

Legal penalties are forms of punishment. They are supposed to be harsh enough to prevent criminals from be breaking the same law again. Criminals are supposed to be given sentences that are as harsh as the crime they have committed. Even though murderers can be given a life sentence without parole they tend to be put to death. That way the convicted murderer will pay the ultimate price for doing such an evil dead. The fear of death is supposed to keep people from acting like some kind of animal. The mind is supposed to have enough power to control the rest of the body. Why doesn’t the legal field evaluate how much every form of punishment harms the mind and start sentencing in ways that truly punish mentally?

   Historical Penalties

Just quickly looking back in time allows one to see how primitive mankind can be. That is highlighted by how people used to be penalized for doing crimes like making the king mad. In America one can look back at the early days of the eighteen hundreds and see how crooks used to be hung to death. There were times when a group of common citizens used to throw a rope over a large tree branch and mount the criminal upon a saddled horse. Once in that position the horse would be run out from under the poor man being hung to death and that form of sentencing would promptly end. Shouldn’t death penalties be carried out the same way they were two centuries ago?

   Possible Sentencing Mistakes

   Unfortunately innocent people have been found guilty. Their defense lawyers have been denied access to all the evidence by the attorney prosecuting them.  In these cases the defendants must prove their innocence instead of an attorney general proving their guilt. In many cases when the person under charge has a lot of money it has been used to help defend them.The conviction can be avoided if some of the jurors are bribed. If evidence is real important in a criminal trial shouldn’t every attorney have direct access to it before the trial starts?

    Death Penalty Evaluation

   There is one thing that can be done that will keep innocent people from being put to death. Before a sentence is given out the judge could have the convicted individual mentally analyzed. That way the judge would know what is felt about going to jail. The convicted murderers that hate it could be given life sentences without parole. The ones that would love it should be given death sentences. Shouldn’t sentences make the murderer suffer mentally as harshly as the victim’s family does? 

   Death Penalty Alternative

Society has reached a higher level than occupied in the past. IT should be admitted that the straight death penalty doesn’t punish harshly enough. People that are armed with misguided minds wander about murdering others. They should be given a penalty that will make them suffer deeply enough to pay their dept. Modern medical knowledge has armed society with enough knowledge to make murders pay harshly for what they have been convicted of. The convicted killer can be paralyzed from the neck down. That way the sentence is the loss of movement of any part of the body below the neck. Shouldn’t people survive enough to feel mental pain?

   Save The Innocent

   The chances are that innocent people really resent being sent to prison. Sentencing murderers this way would just about guarantee nobody gets innocently put to death. This penalty is so mentaly harsh numerious apeals will be filed by convicts before they are penalized. That may allow defense attornies more access to what ever evidance is going to be used. The ultra harsh penalty might give people more od a chance to defend themselves properly. Sending true murderers to what is essentially hell for them might be the proper penalty over all.

Kosanya~

There is nothing democratic about doing away with the death penalty when those who are supposed to safeguard innocent lives take it mercilessly, there is nothing humane about doing away with the death penalty when man has no excuse to rape a child as young as six or four months. This crime stinks and no excuse should be associated with it. Let us not hide behind religion and say that vengeance is the lords. Let us not hide behind religion and leave the death penalty to the lord, let us not leave capital punishment to the day when our monster who killed thousands of innocent people, who serially raped innocent girls, whose corruption led to the hunger and death of millions in their countries. Let us not save these monsters from the three punishments they deserve: Death penalty, Death penalty, Death penalty!

Image via Wikipedia

Murder and death have been imprinted in the history of human being. From the earliest civilizations to the modern day societies, there had been a question of what should be the penalty for heinous crimes? From the ancient  capital punishment, such as stoning, drowning, castration to a  more civilized penalty of lethal injection, if not firing squad, heinous crimes exist everywhere.

While most of the liberal democracies have abandoned the imposition of death penalty, yet, still a few continue to integrate the penalty  with their penal system, with certain modifications. On the other hand, conservative societies, especially the Muslim world, have maintained a strong stand for the implementation of death penalty, based on religious aspect.

However, it is a fact, that heinous crimes were still committed, regardless of religion and political order existing on the area. Thus, political and religious belief seemed irrelevant in this instance but the very issue of humanity. In his imperfection, man would always have the cravings for self-preservation and destruction. Life and death are inseparable to mankind.

Image via Wikipedia

Has death penalty paused deterrence to heinous crimes? The same has been established in the negative. Death penalty law, no matter how harsh or civil would the imposition be, could not deter the existence of heinous crimes because the problem lies not on the law punishing it but on the very nature of man and his criminal tendencies.

Man , in his irrational state, will have the tendency to kill for whatever reasons, thereby, creating no distinction between him and the beast. The real issue is not on whether or not death penalty law be abolished; rather is on how effective the authorities in implementing the law and punishing the culprits,; hence, making death penalty a non-issue in this case. Fair law and fast justice are needed, in this instance, to assure every citizen protection of their rights , person and property.

Why am I against it?

I believe death penalty to be on of the most hypocrite sentences. The whole idea is based in killing someone who killed someone.

How is that fair in any way?

Lets say a human being killed another one. They go to trial and sentence him to death penalty. Obviously another human is going to have to inject him, push the button, pull the lever, etc. This means somebody will have to KILL him.

Now, they don’t kill the guy who kills the murderer. Ergo, they don’t follow their rules and believes about killing someone who kills someone else.

How is it not a hypocrite sentence?

Although, if they did follow them most of the people who support it would end up dead because it would be a killing chain.

Person 1 kills person 2 -> Person 3 kills Person 1 -> Person 4 kills Person 3 -> Person 5 kills Person 5……. -> ……..

See it now?

Death penalty should be prohibited!

Lets start with the definition. According to the Webster’s Dictionary jail is defined as prison, to take into custody.

Now, lets talk about how it has changed.

In the very early years of jail you could go there for what we consider small things these days.Here are some of the examples: Adultery, witchcraft,taking someones land, believing that Jesus was on the earth. Now these are some of the earliest examples.

What would happen if you were jailed in those early years. You could be chained in a dun gen cell,you could have to do hard labor,you may even be stoned,whipped, hung on a cross, hung,burned at the stake,quartered,beheaded.I could go on and on.

One thing was for sure, people did not get in trouble to often and they were pretty much safe.

Now lets speed up to the last one hundred years,up to now.

You can go to jail for a number of things now,anything from drugs to stealing to sexual assault to murder.

In jail, now, you do have the death penalty but it is not as bad as say, the beheading.If you do not have the death penalty I would say you are living the good life for doing wrong.

Instead of hard labor to try and be reformed, you are now welcomed to three hot meals every day, heat and air condition, television time, a bed to sleep in, cloths and shoes, game and outdoor time and free medical attention.

No wonder we are in the shape we are in,no wonder crime is way up.

Just think about, jail then and now.

And there are many more who love to admit that our law enforcers of the city that we call the police has some of the best spinners of truth, who get eaten alive on the stand, by great defense team. We ourselves know someone in the kinship of our family are great at the mis-truth of words.

Some great cases has been solved by convicted felon who has for whatever reason told the truth to solve that case. In certain matters you must say the truth was spoken to assist in the guilt of a person. As with any case you must not weigh the truth on whether he/she is a convict, but on the evidence that at hand they might weigh in with the truth of the case being trial in court.