The Guillotine and Capital Punishment

9/30/2022

vcxDuring the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, over 300,000 people were arrested. Of those people, 17,000 were executed by the Guillotine. Many of those who were executed were victims of mistaken identity, or were falsely accused by their neighbors. Today, over 30 states in the U.S. (including the military and federal government) have the Death Penalty, or Capital Punishment as part of their State Laws. Since 1976, there have been over 1,200 executions in America.
1. Do you believe the Death Penalty should still exist?
2. Why, or why not? Consider possible innocent victims, and consider mass murderers. Give your reasons for or against Capital punishment.
3. Use evidence from the articles listed (or your own research) to support your argument.

Articles:
Which Is Cheaper, Execution or Life in Prison Without Parole?
www.hg.org/legal-articles/which-is-cheaper-execution-or-life-in-prison-without-parole-31614

Should the Death Penalty Be Legal?
deathpenalty.procon.org/questions/should-the-death-penalty-be-allowed/

Death Penalty - Equal Justice Initiative
https://eji.org/issues/death-penalty/

6 Comments

Faith Villar (P4)

10/7/2022 02:27:46 pm

Personally, I think that the death penalty have both pros and cons. The death penalty seems like a humane way to go out but both the thought process and the general process for the death penalty is time consuming, pricey, unjust, unfair, and biased. In my opinion, you can change after you commit a crime and also feel remorse. But as soon as somebody's dead, which can never be changed, I can't accept it anymore. Furthermore my opinion is that you are not worth living anymore if you have little respect for the life of others that you even go as far as committing a crime. Plus, there are not many felons feeling true remorse. I would also only use the death penalty as a punishment if it's 100% clear that this person has actually commited the crime. And when I talk about death penalty people act like it's common to imprison innocent people.

I’m pretty sure the only reason that’s why I’m between the topic of having the death penalty is because, “Ending the death penalty is about justice. It’s about mercy.” and, “The death penalty is a difficult issue for many Americans on moral, religious and policy grounds. But as a legal issue, it is straightforward.” The death penalty basically goes against the human rights law that is universal. Yet, The legal system can not be trusted to make such decisions. Also, people can change and not only does the felon suffer but also their family members. When a criminal is sentenced to life in prison, their family can at least visit them. Adding on to the suffering of family members, they usually want justice for their loved which, “Repealing the death penalty will not heal these peoples’ wounds; it keeps them permanently open” but then again on the opposing side their family members are already suffering. So in a way, the death penalty can be seen as both good and bad.

Fabio Sastro P4

10/7/2022 02:34:07 pm

Realistically, I believe that the death penalty should still exist. However it should exist under strict conditions regardless of the unfair and the false executions that have happened.

Even when there have been many mistreated and unfair accusations and executions, I believe that it should still exist. Even when the system is currently terrible, it can always improve. For instance, lawyers can always be improved. It is for the reason that some lawyers are “overworked, underpaid, and inexperienced in trying death penalty cases,” based on the EJI article, and that rich guilty people and poor innocent people should have the same level of lawyers with the same payment, experience, and educational knowledge. The cause of a death penalty is also very expensive for many reason, the one that I personally think can be improved is collecting more evidence, to reduce DNA testing. It is for this reason that “Genetic testing is not terribly cheap, nor are the experts required to testify about the results,” said from the Legal Sources website. Even when it is said that genetic testing “is an invaluable tool in the criminal process and has helped to prevent innocent men from facing death for crimes they did not commit,” other kinds of evidence are able to be gathered and maybe criminal case investigators can be improved. US representative Cori Bush said that “It’s about putting a stop to this nation’s dark history of lynching and slavery,” which I completely understand. However, another US representative, Charles Stimson, claimed that “Any remnant of racism in the criminal justice system is wrong, and we should work to eliminate it,” and that I completely agree, because “nobody is in favor of racist prosecutors, bad judges or incompetent defense attorneys. If problems arise in particular cases, they should be corrected—and often are.” I believe that death penalties can always be approved because there are really bad people with really bad intentions national and international wise.

Ryan Mena

10/7/2022 02:35:13 pm

1.yes
2.because they must face there crimes

Xavier Espinal

10/7/2022 02:46:43 pm

1. I think the death penalty should exist for gruesome murderers and things like that.There are some really bad people who don't belong on this earth and can't be changed so I think they deserve the death penalty.

2. I think that it should only be used responsibly and not recklessly because some people deserve a second chance. In some cases if someone did something bad but not really bad then we should take jail time into consideration. Sometimes the death penalty is a privilege because some people would rather die then serve life in prison.

Tobias Shen P1

10/7/2022 06:45:10 pm

1. For me, whether it should be legal or not, it depends on the situation.
2. I feel that it should be legal because it puts relentless murderers or critical attackers to death, but it costs more than prison sentences. Murderers should be given the death penalty to punish them for their murders. When attackers are out and about, they could do serious damage like broken legs and legs, blinding people, mass torture, etc. Imagine a family; a murderer’s out and about and they kill that innocent family’s child; how would the family feel? Angry? Sad? The need for revenge? Any of those feelings, and they would want to do something to that murderer. They would want them to die because that murderer killed their child. So the death sentence is necessary in that situation. But sometimes, it shouldn't be necessary. For example, a culprit of stolen items; they don't need death penalties, but should pay the price by being sentenced to prison. I think that will be necessary and appropriate— rather than death sentence—for those who committed crimes similar to theft, such as damage to an object, abusive sexual contact, phishing, hacking, cyberbullying, etc. Innocent people could be wrongfully imprisoned for a crime and sentenced to death. Therefore, the death penalty should be appropriate only to those who murdered or damaged something severely. They could do serious damage; for example, by hurting someone by severing their body parts.
3. According to "The Case Against the Death Penalty" by aclu.org, it states that it "inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantees of due process of law and of equal protection under the law.", meaning that the death penalty is an "intolerable denial of civil liberties and inconsistent with the fundamental values of our democratic system." The article states that the death penalty is unfair, inequitable, expensive, unusual, merciless, and violates the prohibition against cruel punishments. In another article by merciad.mercyhurst.edu, it says that "the death penalty today is not used for traffic violations, low level drug crimes, or even physical assault. The death penalty is now almost exclusively used to punish murderers, and usually rather heinous ones at that. Serial killers, child murderers, mass shooters. These are the types that get the death penalty today. The death penalty is the ultimate justice done towards those that commit the ultimate crime." This means that the death penalty is only appropriate for punishing murderers, mass shooters, and anyone as critical as them.

Talula Allen (P1)

12/19/2022 11:53:50 am

1 & 2 Personally I believe that the major arguments against the death penalty focus on its in-humaneness, lack of deterrent effect, continuing racial and economic biases, and irreversibility.
The death penalty is a waste of taxpayer funds and has no public safety benefit. The vast majority of law enforcement professionals surveyed agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime; a survey of police chiefs nationwide found they rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crime. We argue that it represents a just retribution for certain crimes, deters crime, protects society, and preserves the moral order. I think its a cruel way to end a persons life and shouldn't be an option unless it absolutely has to be.

Discussion Board/ Blog:

Our World History class blog brings students together in an online discussion forum. Weekly topics will be posted for students to discuss. Students will receive an additional five points each week for quality responses to our blog topics. Please remember to post respectful and insightful comments and include your full name and period at the conclusion of your response. In addition, you will be required to comment on at least two other students' post to receive the full 5 points.

World History

Education Blogs: