The Death Penalty; YES or NO

There are many discusssions about the death penalty. Many people advocate for the death penalty, and there are many people who have an aversion about it. While both decisions have good reasoning; which one would be the best for this country? This seems to be against the Eight Amendment but if a person thinks abouti t, it really is not if the government is just killing them back for how the murderer killed an innocent person. The government should validate the use of the death penalty for people who have purposely murderered an innocent soul.
In the state of Oklahoma, there was a man named Melvin Lorenz wo stopped on the highway near Purcell with his wife, Linda, and his son Richard. The only thing they wanted to do was help a person who they thought their vehical was broken down. Shortly after stopping he realized it wasn't a person whose car was broken down, but it was two men, the Stafford brothers. The Stafford brothers attacked, and quickly shot the son, and tortured Melvin's wife to use her as bait; both of the Lorenz's were tortured and killed. Shortly, less than a month later, the Staffords borthers ambushed a small steak hose in Oklahoma City, assailing and killing six employees who were only doing their job to make a living.
In Furman vs. Georgia, it states that the death penality is not against the Eighth Amendment. While the Eighth Amendment is against curel and unusual punishment, on June 29, 1972, the Supreme Court decided that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual since murderers have already broke that Amendment. It states that people who break this Amenment, the judge and the jury have the right to act and decide to use the death penalty.
While lethal injection costs more than to house a murderer, how is it fair to the vicim's family and friends? To imprison a murder it costs $805,000 for a sentence to life. It costs two-million more to execute the murderer. Is it worth the money to execute a person who has killked people who never deserved to die? It may cost more, but as long as there is safety in this environment then the cost should not matter.
Some people believe that the death penalty is against human rights. They believe that the death penalty is gainst human rights. They belive the death penalty should be abolished, because it is egregious, and having the death penalty will never end the cycle of murder and violence in the world. How does the death penalty get rid of or add violence to the world if it is getting rid of the people who hae murdered innocent souls.
Even the Bible is for the death penalty, the verse "Eye for an Eye" by Matthew 5:38, states that if a person is evil then others should act on it. If one person kills, others should kill that person back. If one does wrong, there is a right to do the same thing back. If a victim is killed,then there is a right for the government to kill the murderer.
The government should be allowed to kill people who have murderered an innocent soul. If a person feels that it is exempary to kill another living sou, then it should be expedient to use the death penalty for those people. A person who kills an inncent sould is either vindictive or voracious and usualy not completrely mental in their heads. This will usually cause them to wrath and only waiving their death just seems to be a waste of time. If a person can prove they are murderers and have something seriously wrong with them, not handicapped, but where they can not get out of their mind to stop killing, then there is no other way to save them but to kill this person. If the person is willing to kill an innocent person and not feel they were wrong, then the government should be able to kill them and not feel that it is cruel. This will make it where killing a murderer is not in the Eighth Amendment because it would not be cruel and unusual punishment. Most murderers are inadvertent insurgents, so if anything they will be intemperate and be intractable; if they were to get out on bail or on good behavior, more likely they will only kill again.
One person who is completely against having the death personality is Jessie Fritz. He believes that the government should not be allowed to kill a person if people in general are not allowed to kill. For example; if he knew a person who has killed, then he would not be allowed to kill the same way the government would kill that person. If Jessie was to use lethal injection, he would go to prion for murder, even though the murder should have died beause an innocewnt soul was murdered
If a person was to kill a murderer , than anybody could kill someone they possibly did not like. The only excuse hey could use was that they saw them kill another person. If that was legal than most people in the world would probably die, because everyone has an enemy in the world. Letting the government deal with the killing would enhance the situation with killing murderers.
The government should validate the use of the penalty for people who have purposely murdererd an innocent soul. Killing murdereres will clean up the streets and also have less people in prison. This will help some families at peace as well. Even though their family member is still dead, they will know the peson who killed them is gone and will not harm any other person in the world, including other people in prison. The death penalty should sitll be allowed and kept in all states to help get rid of peoe who really do deserve to die.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •