Would you kill an innocent man or women? Just because the prosecution proves a man or women is guilty does not mean they have committed the crime.
Today's court systems, despite their scrupulous methods are still not 100% accurate. Using the death penalty as a punishment is permanent, and leaves no room for error. However- 13% of all death row inmates since 1976 have been exonerated of their sentence because they were in-fact innocent. 13% may not sound like a lot to you, but out of 767 or so inmates that's about 100 people. One-hundred innocent people that potentially would have been put to death, rather than living out their lives. This is also a bare minimum of course, one could only imagine with the potential inaccuracy of the courts this number in truth could be well over 150. According to an article on CNN.com from April 26, 2002: "DNA testing over the past decade, which [has] have led to the release of more than 80 wrongfully convicted death row inmates between 1994 and 2001."
An ad from the Ecologist Green Party in Mexico pro...
Death-penalty
Death Penalty 2006Clearly the death penalty is unconstitutional and morally wrong.
One would think we have evolved slightly beyond the Magna Carta's an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Think about the death penalty, what is it punishing? Usually it is punishment for a murder, killing another human being. How does killing yet another human make everything right? Some people would argue it gives closure to the families of the victim. But what about the family's of the suspect? It is not the familys' fault the suspect may have killed the victim yet they have to suffer that same loss. By using the death penalty the courts become as bad as the people they are trying to prosecute. It does...
Death Penalty
The Main idea seemed to be 1-that the death penalty should be abolished because of the false conviction rate and 2- it\'s morally wrong to execute even when the conviction is accurate. The second part does not appear in the opening sentences. It should, otherwise it seems like a tangent stick into the middle of the essay.
You asked the reader if he would kill an innocent person. Later in the essay you say \" By using the death penalty the courts become as bad as the people they are trying to prosecute.\" Well, what about if you asked the reader if he would kill a guilty person? You made this a personal question in the opening sentence, but depersonalised it in the essay.
On a personal note, I was talking to a born-again Christian that surprised me because she was very much in favor of the death penalty. I asked her if she would personally execute the condemned, if she would kill the convicted. She responded in the negative. When I asked her why not, she said \"Because that would be killing.\"
2 out of 2 people found this comment useful.