Katie Ameida

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_CydL91xZak&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D_CydL91xZak

“Crooked Teeth” by Death Cab for Cutie conveys responsibility and forlornness; tenets of existentialism. The tone of the music and the tone of the lyrics are contrasting. The music displays emotional depth, unlike in The Stranger, where the simplicity and monotone speech demonstrates a lack of emotion. The lead singer of Death Cab for Cutie, Ben Gibbard, recently lost a lot of weight. He took his life into his own hands, created and defined his own life. He is also a singer, songwriter and guitarist. Through his band, he searches for something to fill the empty void of his forlornness. His existentialism leaks into the songs he writes, which in the song “Crooked Teeth”, is displayed through many of the lyrical verses.
The theme responsibility is illustrated in “Crooked Teeth” by Death Cab for Cutie. Responsibility is creating meaning for your own life. No one can define it for you or create it for you. In this song, the lyrics demonstrate this tenet. “Cause I built you a home in my heart, With rotten wood it decayed from the start.” Here the artist writes about how he took responsibility and began to create his own life. Although creating something from something that is already rotten will only decay after time. Something that starts broken can never be fixed.
Similarly, in The Stranger by Albert Camus, Meursault begins to create his own life, but he also begins to build his life on things that are broken. On page 41, Meursault says, “When I was a student, I had lots of ambitions like that. But when I had to give up my studies I learned very quickly that none of it really mattered.” Meursault constructed his life without the values that had once been important to him. This quote leads you to believe that when Meursault was younger, he had ambitions and cared about things, but he gave up on them and built his life with his own values outside the absolute systems.
Forlornness is conveyed in the lyrics of “Crooked Teeth.” Forlornness is the feeling of despair, isolation, hopelessness after realizing that one must create their own meaning. Being in a state of forlornness can happen whenever a part of your life is based upon something that can break down, like a relationship or an athlete that gets injured. In “Crooked Teeth”, the artist sings lyrics that say “Cause you can’t find nothing at all if there was nothing there all along. No you can’t find nothing at all if there was nothing here all along.” The artist describes here the loneliness and hopelessness he feels. He has lost a loved one, but realizes that there was actually no love. He has been alone and is alone again now. As said in the lyrics, you can’t create something if there was nothing there in the beginning. No one can experience what you do or know how you truly feel. This is attributed to the sense of anxiety one feels.
In The Stranger by Albert Camus, Meursault also experiences forlornness. He has a lack of caring and is lonely because he has no one. Even after he finds someone, he doesn’t even know if he loves her. On page 41, “That evening, Marie came by to see me and asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to. Then she wanted to know that I loved her. I answered the same way I had that last time, that it didn’t mean anything, but that I probably didn’t love her.” Meursault is unable to feel emotion or actually love for somebody. He has realized that it is his own job to create his own world and identity. Because he has realized this, he is unable to feel love for Marie.
The emotional depth displayed throughout the lyrics of the song does not coercively match the tone of the music. Through the song, the music is happy and upbeat, misleading you to believe that without the lyrics, the song would be about positive and blissful subjects. The lyrics reflect the artists struggling emotional life, while the music and sound don’t reflect anything. The music is just a happy sound the band created to trick one into believing that the song is not sad, but is happy. The lyrics in “Crooked Teeth” are very unlike the monotone writing in The Stranger.
The text in The Stranger is the opposite of the lyrics in Crooked Teeth. In The Stranger, the text is very simple and monotone, making it impossible for the reader to create emotional depth while reading. This is the style of Camus’s writing and it is written in this way, for a specific reason. All the sentences are short and simple, while the opposing script, in Crooked Teeth, the lyrics talk a lot about the inability to feel emotion and the artist describes specific scenes and explains in detail.
“Crooked Teeth” by Death Cab for Cutie and The Stranger by Albert Camus both illustrated many tenets of existentialism. Specifically chosen were the characteristics of responsibility and forlornness. Contrastingly, the actually text in each of the pieces are different. In the song, the lyrics are emotional, yet still displaying existentialism, while in The Stranger; the text is very simplistic and monotone. Both of these pieces successfully display similar tenets of existentialism in comparable ways, as well different ways. Although the band Death Cab for Cutie and Albert Camus are from completely different time periods, and create different styles of literature, music and novels, both pieces compared here have still been able to relate to each other because both have the foundation of responsibility, forlornness and a perpendicular style of writing.

Brendan Sileo

 

Brendan Sileo’s Thoughts on the Death Penalty

 

The death penalty should not be used as a punishment for criminals. Not because it is too harsh, but because it is inadequate. Punishments such as life in prison are more effective. It also has the advantage of being much cheaper than the death penalty. There are no reasons to use the death penalty other than because of old traditions from our countries inception.

The death penalty  has been used as a way to punish criminals who have committed terrible crimes such as murder and rape. It is seen as the highest form of punishment, with the next step down being life in prison. However, no matter how effective the death penalty seems as a punishment, it has some very glaring flaws. The death penalty should not be used as a punishment because there are worse punishments for the worst of criminals, there are no societal gains from using the death penalty, it is the most expensive form of punishment, and there is the ever present possibility of killing an innocent man or woman.

To most people, death is the worst thing that could happen to a person. You lose your life, your chance to experience the world and everything in it. According to some people, death is not actually the pinnacle of punishment. According to William Blake, a prisoner for 26 years, this is not true. He told a reporter that “If I try to imagine what kind of death, even a slow one, would be worse than twenty-five years in the box — and I have tried to imagine it — I can come up with nothing.” William didn’t even have a life sentence, and he was wishing for death during his sentence. Why would a someone with a life sentence want something different? Compared to the life of confinement suffered by prisoners for life, death would be like releasing them from their punishment. Suicide is the 5th most common cause of death in all state prisoners, and the leading cause for inmates under 35. The amount of prisoners that prefer to kill themselves instead of spending any more time confined shows how much better a punishment life in jail is compared to the death penalty. In The Stranger, the main characters Meursault is in jail for a murder and says that he “felt […] that [his] life was coming to a standstill there” and that he was often “gripping the bars, [his] face straining toward the light.” This shows the torture that prisoners go through while in jail, forced to deal with that fact that as the world goes on, their life is reduced to only a small box of cement and metal bars. It is similar to how death robs you of the rest of your life, except life in prison makes sure that you stay alive so that you know it. The death penalty, if anything, allows these criminals to escape their punishment, while prison makes them live it for the rest of their life.

One of the largest arguments in favor of the death penalty is that the possibility of death for their crimes is a much better deterrent than the threat of imprisonment. Although this may be a viable claim, it is not as true as it seems. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), there are many reasons why the death penalty is not a good deterrent. One of them is that “a punishment can be an effective deterrent only if it is consistently and promptly”. Very few of first-degree murderers are given the death penalty, and even fewer of them are actually executed, with most of them being changed to life in prison. With such a small group of people actually being sentenced to death, a criminal allowing that to control their actions would be similar to a skydiver not skydiving to avoid the possibility of being hit by a falling meteor. The ACLU also says that “most capital crimes are committed in the heat of the moment”. In such a situation that would make a person commit a crime such as murder (an extremely heated argument, drugs, alcohol, etc) they are not thinking in a way that allows them to understand the consequences. In The Stranger,  Meursault kills the Arab at a time when he is experiencing great emotional stress, which can be seen when he says “That’s when everything began to reel. The sea carried up a thick, fiery breath. It seemed to me as if the sky had split open from one end to the other to rain down fire. My whole being tensed and I squeezed my hand around the revolver.” Meursault was obviously not thinking about the possibility of any punishment, let alone the death penalty. In some cases, the threat of the death penalty actually increases the amount of murders that occur in an area. This is because “a return to the exercise of the death penalty weakens socially based inhibitions against the use of lethal force to settle disputes” meaning that when the government uses death as a punishment, it makes the idea of using lethal force to resolve arguments and disputes much easier to reach.

A common opinion about the death penalty is that it is much cheaper than life in prison, so it makes sense to use the death penalty to waste less money, however, the death penalty is more expensive than one would think. It costs millions more than life in prison. For example, the Death Penalty Information Center says that “Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole.” This is because since the death penalty is permanent, and punishing the wrong person can not be taken back, there are many more trials and appeals before the actual punishment is given. This to more jail time, with some inmates on death row spending “well over 20 years” waiting for their punishment. While that is not as long as life in prison, the amount of trials that happen during this time are much higher, costing the state millions of dollars per inmate. In addition to these costs, many of them later end up either released or sentenced with life in prison anyway. Since 2000, 59 death row inmates have been exonerated in the United States alone. That’s almost 10 percent of the inmates who have actually been executed.

Human judgement is not infallible. The advantage of most criminal punishments is that it can always be reversed by releasing them from prison. The death penalty is different in that it is the only punishment that is irreversible. If the government executes and innocent man there is no taking it back. According to the ACLU, “ there have been on the average more than four cases each year in which an entirely innocent person was convicted of murder.” Many of these individuals were not found innocent until after they died. The fact that innocent people have the chance to die makes the death penalty a very difficult idea to support. Until our societies ability to determine who actually committed a murder or other crime is improved to be 100% correct, it is not ethically permissible to continue issuing the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a viable option for punishing criminals. There are too many variables to consider. With the possibility of ending the life of an innocent person combined with the incredible costs of this form of punishment, life in prison is a much better option for punishing the harshest of criminals.

Brian Mitchell

If someone told you that the government is killing people to show others that killing is wrong would you believe it? The death penalty practiced by the United States government has killed many people, some being innocent, and is very wrong and should be abolished. The death penalty seems like a good idea up front but it comes with many flaws.

The Death Penalty

The death penalty has ended the lives of about 1,330 American citizens since 1976 and I believe this process should stop being practiced in the United States. This is because of the many flaws that this sentence contains, including wrongful execution, being unconstitutional, and its ineffectiveness at being a deterrent to other criminals. The book The Stranger by Albert Camus displays the practice of the death penalty and how it affects the mind.

Thirty-nine… that’s how many people that should be alive today but are unfortunately not due to wrongful execution. Wrongful execution is when a person is convicted and sentenced with the death penalty and then executed then later evidence proved that they were actually innocent. This occurs because of many different factors including inadequate legal representation. Many defendants who are convicted and may be facing the death penalty are usually poor and cannot afford proper legal representation so they take whatever is given to them which may not be adequate at all. Many lawyers of these individuals are very incompetent by being asleep, drunk or asleep in court which will cause the defendant to be convicted. An example of this is from a case of a man named Jimmy Ray Bromgard. Bromgard, arrested when he was 18 and he spent 15 years in prison accused for the  rape of an eight-year-old girl, a crime post-conviction DNA testing proved he did not commit. Bromgard’s trial attorney performed no investigation, filed no pre-trial motions, gave no opening statement, did not prepare for closing arguments, failed to file an appeal, and provided no expert to refute the fraudulent testimony of the state’s hair microscopy expert. Other than the forensic testimony and the tentative identification, there was no evidence against Bromgard. With any adequate legal representation Bromgard would have been easily proved innocent and not wrongfully convicted. This is shown in The Stranger during Meursault’s trial when Muersault says “In fact, there seemed to be a conspiracy to exclude me from the proceedings; I wasn’t to have any say and my fate was to be decided out of hand.” (Camus, 98). This shows the inadequate legal representation from Muersault’s lawyer because his lawyer is not letting Meursault to do anything and is basically deciding is fate for him. A second factor that could cause wrongful conviction is police and prosecutor misconduct and error. This is when the prosecutor illegally withholds vital evidence from the defendants causing them to lose and giving the false outcome of the case.  According to the University of Missouri-Kansas, police misconduct was a factor in 50% of the DNA exonerations and prosecutorial misconduct was a factor in 45%. With these factors and many others, wrongful conviction and execution are surprisingly more common than most think and shows that the death penalty should be abolished.

Another reason that the death penalty should stop being practiced in the United States is that it is unconstitutional because it violates many amendments. One of the amendments that the death penalty violates is the 8^th amendment where it states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” As William J. Brennan, Justice of the US Supreme Court stated, “Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment… The fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death is that it treats ‘members of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded.” What Brennan is saying is that the death penalty is inhumane and very cruel and unusual because the government is not treating the people like citizens they’re treating them like objects to do with however they want and that is truly wrong and unconstitutional. Another way the death penalty violates the 8^th amendment is from what is called botched executions where something goes wrong while attempting to execute a person, causing extreme pain and discomfort. An example of this is during the execution of Romell Broom by lethal injection in 2009. What had happened was according to Death Penalty Information Center, “Efforts to find a suitable vein and to execute Mr. Broom were terminated after more than two hours when the executioners were unable to find a useable vein in Mr. Broom’s arms or legs. During the failed efforts, Mr. Broom winced and grimaced with pain. After the first hour’s lack of success, on several occasions Broom tried to help the executioners find a good vein. “At one point, he covered his face with both hands and appeared to be sobbing, his stomach heaving.” This is very cruel and unusual, no matter how rare these occurrences are, happening once should be enough to realize that something needs to be done.  Another amendment that the death penalty violates is the 14^th amendment where it states that all persons will have equal protection under the law. In 2001, the New Jersey Supreme Court released a report stating that the death penalty law is more likely to proceed against defendants who kill white victims. Also, in 1997 there was a study among death eligible defendants in Philadelphia and it concluded that there was a 38% increased chanced to receive the death penalty if the accused was black.

Even with all the criminals being executed today, the death penalty is not a very good deterrent to other criminals.  A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. This is a surprisingly large number and shows that the death penalty really is not as effective as most people think. Along with the same study, Radelet and Lacock discovered that nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime. Both of these statistics strongly show that the death penalty is not the best thing for the United States. Politicians use it to become more favorable among the people and may not even personally believe in it and that most of the leading criminologists think that the death penalty does not deter other criminals from committing crimes. The ineffectiveness of the death penalty at deterring criminals can also be seen in The Stranger. In part one, chapter six when Muersault kills the Arab he does not think about being punished and sentenced to the death penalty showing that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. These examples from real life statistics and from The Stranger show how ineffective of a deterrent the death penalty is and should be removed from the United States as a punishment.

People who are in favor of the death penalty will say that the death penalty gives the victim’s family closure and peace. This is true but, being locked up for life gives just as much closure and peace, knowing that the criminal is eternally stuck inside a prison cell. Also, to most people it is more of a punishment to be locked in a cell for life than to be killed and put out of the pain of sitting in a cell for life. Also, People who are for the death penalty will say that it works very well at keeping other criminals from committing crimes because it will scare them from doing anything illegal. But, most criminologists say that the death penalty is not a very good deterrent. Another point that pro death penalty people might say is that race has no influence but this is not true, as said earlier, just by being a minority there is a drastic increase in chance that you will be convicted.

The death penalty should be removed from the United States because of its many flaws. The three main flaws that the death penalty has is wrongful conviction and execution, to many people are dying wrongful deaths. Also, it is unconstitutional; the death penalty violates many amendments of the constitution. Lastly, it has very little effect on other criminals as a deterrent; criminals will still commit crimes even if the death penalty may be their demise. The death penalty has little benefits when put up against all the faults that it has and needs to be abolished from the United States.

Matt Coppola

The Death Penalty is an acceptable form of punishment for perpetrators of especially heinous or diabolical crimes. It acts as a deterrent, gives the victim a sense of closure and is more cost effective than sentencing someone to life in prison without possibility of parole. The essay focuses on these three key points and then explains how opposition of the Death Penalty is misinformed on the actual facts.

The Death Penalty is an Appropriate Punishment

 

The legality and ethics of the death penalty has been questioned since the conception of organized society. The death penalty is a form of punishment in which a person who has been convicted of a serious crime is executed under the precept of the criminal justice system. The death penalty has been in existence for thousands of years and is currently used in 21 countries, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia executed the most inmates in 2012. In the US, it is legal punishment for capital offenders in 32 states. A capital offender is someone who commits one of the 41 Federal capital offenses, the 41 offenses are somewhat consistent between all users of the death penalty. Some examples of capital offenses include 1st degree murder, treason, and terrorism. The Death Penalty is an appropriate punishment for perpetrators of especially heinous and diabolical crimes. It effectively deters crime, victims gain well deserved closure, and it is far more cost effective to execute than it is to house in prison for life.

Death is a far more severe punishment than imprisonment for life. Death is a common trepidation between humans and even the most hardened criminals fear it. As Ernest Van Den Haag Late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University stated, “Murderers clearly prefer it to execution — otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death.” Earlier this year, Ohio man Ariel Castro was accused of the rape, kidnapping and 10 year imprisonment of 3 other Ohioan women. In order to avoid the Death Penalty, Castro agreed to plead guilty to 937 counts of his 977 count indictment. The plea bargain stated Castro would spend his life in prison without parole plus spend an additional 1,000 years and in turn, he would avoid the Death Penalty. In another instance, Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes also accepted a plea deal in which he would spend the rest of his life inside a mental institution rather than be put to death, James Holmes, killer of 25, accepted the guilty plea after submitting it to prosecutors. New Mexico shooter, Jared Loughner pleaded guilty to 19 counts at his court hearing, which ultimately spared him the death penalty. The sentence could not include the death penalty, because the guilty plea bargain was made with an assurance that it would not be sought. Felons who commit heinous crimes will do anything to get out of a Death Penalty conviction. This shows that felons are not at all willing to die for their crimes. This correlates with a statement made by Michael Summers, PhD and author of the book “Capital Punishment Works”. He stated “recent research … conducted by the FBI… shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year… The study examined the relationship between the number of executions and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004.” There is an obvious negative trend of murders when executions increase. Based on Justice Bureau statistics, when the Death Penalty was reinstated in the US after continued debate in the late 1970’s there was a drop in the number of murders committed. When the numbers of executions began to diminish, the murder rate began to increase. Since 2001, there has been a decline in executions and a rise in murders. These cold hard facts and statistics are proof that the Death Penalty effectively deters criminals from committing crime.

 

Secondly, the Death Penalty ensures that the victims of these especially heinous crimes get the appropriate closure they deserve. It’s unfortunate that the emphasis of criminal justice systems worldwide are focused on protecting the criminal rather than the victim. When a criminal gets life in prison he is indiscriminately cared for during his entire sentence while victims are left out to dry, usually without any state support. In Albert Camus’s “The Stranger” the main character Meursault is suspected in the shooting death of an unnamed Arab man. He is provided for and even gains an audience with a priest while the victims family aren’t provided with any support. Judicial systems worldwide have consistently favored the offenders over the victims. The Death Penalty does not only provide retribution for the Victim, it also returns order to society. When a serious crime is committed the order of society is tragically disrupted. As J. Budziszewski, PhD Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin stated “Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution.” Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring order and making the criminal pay the price of his crime. Society will return to normal after the criminal has been dealt what he deserves. Life without possibility of parole does not meet the expectation of the crime committed, therefore society will not return to normal. Once the criminal has been awarded an equal and fair punishment for what he has committed, then the victim get well deserved retribution and closure from a dramatic and life changing moment.

Lastly, the Death Penalty is economically superior to life without possibility of parole. As Dudley Sharp, director of the JFA (Justice for All Foundation) stated “Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive at least $2 million per case, that we must choose life without parole at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million, $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases.” It is fact that LWOP cases cost substantially more to process than Death Penalty cases. It is also fact that it costs $69,000 dollars per year to house a prisoner. The Death Penalty is a substantial omission from these great life sentence costs. It costs a fraction of that to execute an offender than to pay $69,000 per year to house, feed and support them. Overall, It costs far less to execute prisoners than it is to provide for them for the rest of their lives.

 

Many people believe that the death penalty is a barbaric and inappropriate form of punishment around the world. They are misinformed and incorrect. In the 1970’s the Death Penalty was subject to evaluation by the US Supreme Court. Justice John G. Roberts stated that “whenever a method of execution has been challenged in this Court as cruel and unusual, the Court has rejected the challenge. Our society has nonetheless steadily moved to more humane methods of carrying out capital punishment.” The courts have consistently ruled that the Death Penalty is completely constitutional. It does not violate any constitutional amendments. People who oppose the Death Penalty also argue that It destroys and does not protect. This is false, the Death Penalty protects other people from crimes that the criminal may commit if he is left alive. Many Death Row inmates are career criminals who have previous records. The Death Penalty prevents these criminals from going on to commit even more crime. Opposition of the Death Penalty are most commonly misinformed about the cost. They believe that the cost of a Death Penalty trial is more than the costs of housing the prisoner for the rest of their life, which is also incorrect.

 

The Death Penalty is a strong and effective punishment for perpetrators of especially heinous and diabolical crimes.  It effectively deters crime, victims gain well deserved closure, and it is far more cost effective to execute than it is to house in prison for life. Once these perpetrators have been executed, order will return to society. People who unfortunately oppose the Death Penalty are usually very misinformed. The controversy and legality should be put to rest as the Death Penalty is superior to Life in prison without possibility of parole.
Matt Coppola

Jae Clarke-Randolph

The death penalty is a good thing for society today, it is able to keep people safe, save money, and it deters people from committing serious crimes.  In the essay it persuades the ready to agree with the death penalty.  The readers will end up agreeing with the death penalty due to the valid points made that people against it will end up changing sides.  The overall writing of this is a very persuasive essay that convinces the reader to agree with the death penalty.

 

Jae Clarke-Randolph

10/28/13

 

Death Penalty should be Applied in Serious Cases

The death penalty, questioned by most due to how immoral and unethical it is. But I see the death penalty as a positive for society.  I see that if somebody commits a very serious they should be given the death penalty as an option so they cannot harm anyone again because if somebody goes to prison they can get out somehow and continue to keep murdering.  In no way the death penalty should be questioned because if somebody commits a serious crime that involve murder, rape, etc. then the death penalty should be applied in that case.  The death penalty should be used because it can save lives, it can also deter criminals, and is also a lot more cost effective. I am on the side of having the death penalty because it helps gets rid of the dangerous criminals off the streets.

 

The death penalty is able to save innocent peoples lives and it can also help save prisoners lives as well.  It is able to save lives in prison because then the criminal can still kill the prisoners in the prison.   It is a better protector than a life sentence without bail or a life sentence in general, because the criminal can somehow get out of prison and can start killing people again, because you don’t know if he is crazy in the head still.  If the murder is living in prison they will always find someway to escape the prison and go on another rampage again.  For each inmate that is put to death, there is three to 18 murders are prevented.  Dudley Sharp said, “Executed murderers never murder again.”  I agree with him because if the murder is gone there is no need to worry about being killed by a murderer finding you because he is gone.  There is no way to tell if criminals are still prone to being violent if they are taken into prison.  With criminals being executed by the death penalty it helps saves people’s lives.

 

What most people fear the most is to be dead, so what should deter criminals is the death penalty and that will deter murder.  Deterrence is a way that the death penalty is a good idea to keep in mind. By making a criminal an example of what could happen to others who try to commit very serious crimes.  Death will deter the criminals because most people do not want to die for their consequences if the law apprehends them.  With criminals knowing their consequences they will be more hesitant to pursue that crime because the risk of the death penalty.  A life in prison is less feared and not as much of a deterrent because murders/criminals know it is possible to escape prison, and go back to a life of crime.  The risk of apprehension and a much bigger risk of dying deter the criminals from committing crimes due to the fact they could be killed.  Therefore, we have to continuously to execute these murderers to ensure that people do not try to commit these crimes.  If murderers were executed for what their crimes they wouldn’t do it, but since they are sent to prison, murderers do not even care so they continue to commit these crimes.  Deterrence is a good reason to have the death penalty because it can stop harsh crimes, but also people will think before they act.

 

People say that the cost of putting a criminal in prison is a lot cheaper than having them die from the death penalty, but overtime the cost of a life in prison without bail is costs more than a death sentence in the long run.  The death penalty also makes the taxpayers dollars; no longer support the criminals in jail.  Upfront the death penalty is more money, but as years go on the death penalty becomes cheaper than a LWOP (Life without parole).  A criminal will always appeal their sentence and it will end costing the same as it would if they received the death penalty.  Criminals will appeal no matter what, and in that process is where the cost of the death penalty becomes less money than a life sentence because of the money that is put in the appeal process.  The price of keeping a person in prison, for life is a lot more money, than having them be executed. The cost efficiency of the death penalty is questioned by most, but studies do show that the death penalty is cost efficient and is a good choice for instead of a life sentence for these criminals.

People will say that my facts are completely wrong and that I shouldn’t think that the death penalty should be a good idea and it isn’t moral but I believe the morality of the death penalty is completely reasonable because in the cases of murder, rape, torture, etc. it is in reason to have the death penalty.  I am right about the death penalty because of my reasoning’s.  There is no doubt that the death penalty does save lives because you’re keeping a possible murderer out of the prison where they could kill the prisoners, or they could escape the prison and start killing people again.  The cost of death will deter the criminals because no one wants to die, but criminals will deal with being in prison and could possibly escape prison.  People will argue that the cost of the death penalty is a lot more than having somebody put in prison but in the long run the cost of the death penalty will be less in the long run.  It is very obvious that the death penalty is something that should not be questioned and should be used more often.

 

The death penalty should be used when the cases are very serious because then the criminal should be punished to the fullest extent.  The points made earlier have persuaded you to agree with me especially on the case of how the death penalty can save lives.  How the death penalty saves lives is because if you put them into prison they can still be hostile and kill the other prisoners, also the murderer can escape the prison.  The fact that a person can do that makes the death penalty a completely reasonable thing and should be used because of that possibility.  The cost of the death penalty is a reasonable choice when compared overtime with a life sentence without bail because of the appeal process that a prisoner will make which then will add up to the same amount.  Deterrence is a good way to have the death penalty due to the fact that nobody likes to die, so by making the death penalty the highest means of punishment criminals will think before they act.  The death penalty is by far a very reasonable way to convict criminals and by no means not moral.  Hopefully in the future more states will opt in for the death penalty because they see how good it can be.