Reshearch and Essay Plan 2024 2nd Nine Weeks

Pros:
The death penalty is a widely debated issue with passionate supporters and opponents.
- The Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the death penalty, and the majority of
American states continue to uphold it.
- Advocates assert that the death penalty acts as a deterrent and metes out proportional retribution
for heinous crimes.
- Critics' concerns about racial disparities and the potential for wrongful convictions are acknowledged,
but the criminal justice system has made significant strides towards fairness, including improved
opportunities for appeals and fair trials.
- The case of Genny Rojas, a young victim, is often cited as a compelling example where the death
penalty is deemed essential for achieving justice.
Cons:
- Virginia abolished the death penalty in March 2021, reflecting a positive shift away from capital
punishment.
- The process of proving someone 100% guilty for the death penalty is time-consuming, costly, and
ultimately impossible to ensure.
- Advocates argue that it's morally wrong to sentence anyone to death given the impossibility of
absolute certainty.
- The pandemic temporarily halted executions, but the U.S. was already moving towards fewer
executions, signaling a positive trend away from this form of punishment.
- Hannah Cox, from Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, strongly opposes the death
penalty, citing its wastefulness, potential to end innocent lives, and failure to enhance public safety.
- Many individuals who previously supported the death penalty are now reconsidering their stance,
aligning with the growing movement to end capital punishment.
**Claim:**
In 1994, Sarah Smith, then 22, tragically took the lives of her two young sons, Michael and Alexander,
by allowing her car to roll into John D. Lake in Union County. At ages 3 and 14 months, they drowned
in a horrifying six minutes. In my view, people like her deserve the death penalty, which serves both as
a just punishment for heinous crimes and as a deterrent to potential offenders. While the concept of
capital punishment is fraught with ethical dilemmas, it is crucial for maintaining a proportional
response to extreme offenses.
**Reasoning:**
Genesis 9:6 states, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the
image of God has God made man." This biblical directive implies a fundamental principle: those who
take a life must face similar consequences. The death penalty has long been debated, with advocates
arguing it deters crime and ensures justice for victims and their families. Upholding the rule of law
and accountability is paramount, and cases like Sarah Smith highlight the need for capital
punishment to deliver justice for the most grievous acts.
**Evidence**
The argument for the death penalty is underscored by the tragic case of Genny Rojas, who "was only
4 years old" when she was killed by her aunt and uncle, emphasizing the need for justice against such
heinous crimes. The text notes that a majority of Americans have supported the death penalty since
polling began in 1938, indicating strong societal backing. Furthermore, it states that "the Supreme
Court also says the death sentence follows the Constitution," reinforcing its legal validity. With "over
1,500 executions" since its reinstatement in 1976, the death penalty remains a significant aspect of
the criminal justice system. The text articulates three critical goals of the death penalty: general
deterrence, ensuring that potential murderers are aware of the consequences, specific deterrence,
which prevents the executed from committing further crimes, and retribution, asserting that "if a
person killed somebody, that person deserves death," aligning the punishment with the severity of the
crime. Finally, the text highlights the importance of recognizing victims like Genny Rojas, stating that
"justice will not be served until they are executed," further advocating for the necessity of the death
penalty in delivering justice.
**Counterclaim & Rebuttal:**
The case of Sarah Smith raises important concerns about the death penalty. Instead of focusing on
execution, we should prioritize rehabilitation and mental health support, as many offenders act out of
distress. Research shows the death penalty does not deter crime more effectively than life
imprisonment, and wrongful convictions risk executing innocent people. Additionally, the costs
associated with the death penalty often exceed those of life sentences due to lengthy legal processes.
While rehabilitation has its merits, it may not be suitable for all offenders, particularly those who
commit horrific acts. Focusing solely on rehabilitation might downplay the suffering of victims and
their families. Furthermore, while studies challenge the idea that the death penalty does not deter
crime, some indicate a correlation between its use and lower murder rates. Despite concerns about
wrongful convictions, the moral imperative to deliver justice for victims remains vital. Stringent legal
safeguards can help minimize risks associated with capital punishment. Ultimately, the death penalty
reaffirms society's commitment to valuing human life and holding those who commit grave offenses
accountable. It ensures justice for victims like Michael and Alexander, recognizing their tragic loss and
deterring future crimes.
**Conclusion:**
The death penalty is a deeply complex and contentious issue, with strong arguments on both sides.
Supporters advocate for its deterrent effect and proportional retribution, while opponents raise
significant concerns about morality, the risk of wrongful convictions, and the emotional impact on
victims' families. As this debate evolves, it is vital to consider the underlying principles and practical
consequences of the death penalty, weighing its implications for individuals and society as a whole.
Torture is often defined in legal contexts as the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, either
physically or psychologically, for purposes such as punishment or coercion. Proponents of the death
penalty argue that, when carried out humanely, it does not meet the threshold of torture as defined
in various legal frameworks.
Many jurisdictions implement the death penalty using methods that are designed to minimize
suffering, such as lethal injection. Advocates argue that these methods are humane and differ
significantly from traditional definitions of torture, which involve prolonged or extreme suffering.
The death penalty is typically subject to extensive judicial review and legal proceedings, providing
safeguards that are not present in cases of torture. This legal framework ensures that the rights of
the accused are upheld, and wrongful executions can be challenged.
Supporters claim that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to violent crime, contributing to public
safety. They argue that this societal benefit outweighs the potential psychological impacts associated
with death sentences.
The argument for the death penalty is often rooted in retributive justice, where the punishment is
seen as a proportional response to the crime. This perspective contends that the death penalty serves
a legitimate societal function in addressing heinous offenses.
: Not all countries agree on the classification of the death penalty as torture. Many nations still
actively use capital punishment and view it as a legitimate legal practice, reflecting differing cultural
and legal standards.

Reshearch and Essay Plan 2024 2nd Nine Weeks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reshearch and Essay Plan 2024 2nd Nine Weeks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reshearch and Essay Plan 2024 2nd Nine Weeks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pros:

Counterclaim & Rebuttal:

You might also like