Capital Punishment
Should someone die if there is not enough justifiable evidence? Should someone die if that person has no respect for life and humanity? These are two very strong issues that are debated about capital punishment. These issues are completely opposite, but both have the justice system in question. To justify the means of capital punishment; one must look at the current flaws in the system, review the court processes and activity, and understand the punishment meant by a life for a life. I am for the death penalty under the circumstances that there are some improvements to the court process and the national system.
Addressing the current flaws in the system includes the time served on death row, the lack of consistency among states in review and appeal issues, and the age limit for sentencing the death penalty. Most criminals sentenced to death serve an average time of 10 years and 2 months. I feel that this is to long for any punishment to have an impact of general deterrence. In this usage, the death penalty does not seem to have the severity that it should have. It is my belief is that most death rows candidates have the false hope of years of review boards and appeal processes. Capital punishment is supposed to be exactly what it says, the capital punishment. It is to be the most harsh and severe.
That brings up the next issue, the inconsistency among states in appeal processes. As an example, Virginia has a statue of 30 days after sentencing to have an appeal. This puts the severity of the punishment in the hands of the jury, and both the prosecution and defense. The case has to be presented to the best ability, from both sides. This is how the appeal process should be, not taking a shot in the dark and hoping for a conviction on half presented and circumstantial evidence. Unfortunately this is not so, there are convictions handed out without all possible evidence to prove guilt or innocence. This being so, in states such as...
Please login to view the full essay...