Since , death-row prisoners in America have been released due to evidence proving their innocence. In Vietnam the trial process does not meet international standards. Furthermore, the use of capital punishment violates various aspects of human rights. Therefore, as the USA is a pioneer country of the United Nations, the government should consider the existence of the death penalty as a contradiction to the United Nations objectives.
Consequently, the abolitionist movement has increased over the past years, monitored by the United Nations. The USA should also join the abolitionist countries because the existence of capital punishment continues to set it apart from the United Nations. In addition to that, there are certain human rights violations in the death penalty system itself.
Additionally, it is not clear whether the USA Constitution allows. If capital punishment was abolished and replaced by other alternative, such as live imprisonment, which is cheaper than the execution process, 5 both sides would benefit of even lower homicide rates. In addition to that, people would feel secure that nothing could take away the most important inherent right-to live. In April , the American Civil Liberties Union ACLU , after wrestling with the problem for several years, revised its position on capital punishment and introduced its new policy with these words:.
We believe that past decisions to the contrary are in error, and we will seek the repeal of existing laws imposing the death penalty, and will seek reversal of convictions carrying a sentence of death. This policy statement is significant primarily because it comes from the one national organization devoted to interpreting and securing enforcement of the Bill of Rights as a living force in American life.
If the ACLU thinks capital punishment is unconstitutional, perhaps it is. This is unprecedented recognition by the courts of the possible conflict between civil liberties and capital punishment. In cases where the penalty has been carried out, and where post-conviction proceedings would prove the conviction improper, capital punishment denies the fundamental remedy that is still available to those in prison: release and in some cases exoneration and indemnification.
Very incomplete records indicate that there is, on the average, one case every other year in the United States involving someone who was convicted of a capital crime but not executed and who either vindicates his innocence and is freed or at least establishes the unfairness of his conviction. The occasional obiter dicta of earlier years on behalf of the death penalty are hardly sufficient today.
They are not even squarely in point, since in no case to date has the Court been faced directly with the issue of capital punishment as such and its alleged unusual cruelty. Furthermore, after decades of relative restraint on any number of issues touching basic rights expressly and by implication guaranteed to an under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the courts have acted to restore what legislatures, administrative agencies, and other arms of executive power have ignored or denied.
As in most legislative policies affecting civil liberties and civil rights, there are limits to what even the most enlightened appellate courts can do when left adrift by the other branches of government. On the matter of capital punishment, those limits may have been reached, at least for the moment, in Gregg and Woodson.
The codification of morality on the death penalty began back in when the U. Since the Declaration members of the U. Because the Declaration was a non-binding treaty, many nations felt that other nations would have no motivation to follow it. It now has ratifications. In the Covenant there is a strong suggestion that all U.
To put added moral pressure on elites the Covenant also created a Human Rights Committee to check on how states are implementing the Covenant. This addition would only allow the death penalty in times of war. The agreement also requires states that sign it to submit reports to the Human Rights Committee on how they are implementing the agreement. In addition to the agreement, the U. Commission On Human Rights has appointed a Special Rapporteur on the usage of the death penalty around the world.
The findings of the Special Rapporteur are picked up by the media elite who then shine a media spotlight on those elites that are outside the standards of the codified morality. These elites who are educated and well off, meet regularly at the UN, international gatherings and private meetings and are increasingly scrutinized at the media at press conferences. Again the pressure on the egos of these elites to be thought of in a positive light, especially on the issue of the death penalty is growing.
In an era of mass communications national elites are more aware of their place in the world and how the rest of the world views them. For example, in nine former top U. S Foreign Service officers made a special presentation before the U. Supreme Court calling for an end to the death penalty, in part because of the increasing political isolation of the U. In the U. Supreme Court opinion in Atkins v.
Virginia, the court acknowledged the importance of international opinion and agreements in setting the standards of morality. In terms of the issue of morality, elites are also feeling pressure from religious elites to abolish the death penalty. Most members of the Catholic Church want the death penalty, but the elites that control the church are against it. Not only do religious elites pressure other religious elites, but they actively push the issue with non- religious elites as well.
For example the former Pope had numerous meetings with foreign elites and often pressured them to abolish the death penalty in their country. In January of on a visit to St. Capital Punishment is morally wrong and sometimes dangerously mistaken. Imagine you are sitting in the front row of a small room, seated in a chair designed for comfort, looking through the small window and watching as they strap your brother to the metal table.
Your mother, beside you, is crying hysterically while your sister attempts to comfort her. You watch with sad eyes, as your brother dies alone on that metal slab. You look away, unable to watch anymore, but instead see the woman behind you smile as your brother is murdered, and you feel sick to your stomach at this madness.
Has this new death actually righted a wrong? Capital Punishment is unjust and the US should abolish it. In addition to morality, another reason for the sudden international increase in momentum towards abolishing the death penalty is the increasing perception that the death penalty is barbaric and uncivilized. With hangings prisoners have been decapitated and some have had to be hung several times. Because of international pressure the courts have continually stepped in to limit what crimes can be considered for the death penalty.
The U. The international political, religious and media elites have put continuous pressure on the U. Under this pressure the U. Supreme Court finally gave in an abolished at the end of the death penalty for those who commit crimes before they turn. By attacking individual cases the pressure of world elites has reduced the possible uses of the death penalty to a very few cases. If the trend continues the death penalty may eventually disappear in all cases.
This is all taking place at a time when the masses of the world still support the use of the death penalty. The judicial process in the U. But the issue that is really putting pressure on political and judicial elites to reconsider the death penalty is the problem of wrongful convictions. It is on this foundation that several anti-capital punishment activists convince for their perspective, by asserting that the government blatantly disregards the sacredness of human life by prohibiting the criminals their admitted and recognized right to live.
Furthermore, there are also those who maintain that the capital punishment is duplicitous because whereas it sends out a message that assassination is a crime that should be considered damned and must be reproached; the government is doing specifically what it denounces by executing the criminal. Yet, others bring out the apparent vainness of executing criminals; they advocate clemency and peace, and scorn the capital punishment for its ostensible emphasis on retribution. There is very little valid evidence to suggest that capital punishment deters criminals.
Some emotionally ill people would see death as the only route to freedom, so the death penalty does not deter them at all. A better deterrent is needed, which would make finding the culprit easier and quicker, making it impossible for criminals to get away with what they have done. If such a deterrent was found then criminals would have second thoughts of committing the crime because they would think that they might get caught.
Delay is also what makes capital punishment less of a deterrent, because it minimizes the chances of a convicted criminal ever being executed. If an appeal is made it would delay the execution by five to ten years. Murder cannot be cured by murder.
The death penalty is cruel, inhumane and above all irreversible. Hugo A. He is prevented, not deterred, from so doing. But death is too high a price to pay when studies show that convicted murderers rarely commit another violent crime. To prevent the occasional repeat murder, everyone convicted of criminal homicide would have to be executed- a policy too brutal to consider and one that would require dozens of legal killings each day. The fact that there is no evidence to support the view that it deters criminals is irreversible and an inhumane punishment suggests that capital punishment should be abolished worldwide.
Many supporters of the death penalty argue that it is only fair to kill a murderer. It is very easy to assert that this is the right thing to do because this is what the bible tells us. I do not necessarily believe in every single word that is said in this book, but if someone argues for the death penalty by quoting from the bible, I can counter argue by also citing from it.
It is mendacious, if people try to reinforce their statements by quoting from the bible, although they obviously have not even read it thoroughly. Death penalty as revenge and retribution cannot be morally justified. How can it be vindicated that people create violence in order to fight against violence?
We murder to take care of another murder. Although it is in our instincts to inflict pain on those who commit a crime, or make us feel bad, the standards of a mature society should demand for a more measured response. It is assumed that the United States Justice System is flawless and has the correct resources to provide tangible evidence to claim a person guilty. For one, the death penalty does not single out the worst offenders. Almost all defendants facing death row cannot find an attorney to represent them.
Serial killers, such as Gary Ridge Way, admitted to killing 48 prostitutes and runaways; he got life in prison. A nurse in New Jersey killed 17 people and got life in prison. Meanwhile, mentally ill and poor murderers who could not afford good lawyers and did not attract much media were given the death penalty. If the death penalty will be applied in the U.
S, it should be applied justly and have no exceptions, but to obtain a faulty-free system, many aspects would have to be changed. Because such kinds of factors cannot be monitored, abolishment of the death penalty, in all, should be made. Sometimes confessions are later found to be forced by police or made by mentally ill defendants. Suicides and accidents are sometimes mistaken for murders, leading to convictions. Many people argue that capital punishment is the right penalty for murderers because they trust in the justice system of the United States.
They assert that any person who is put on trial can have a lawyer, can go back to court at any time if there is new evidence found. Thus, these citizens trust in the system, believing that only guilty people become condemned. Unfortunately, this assumption is not correct. The past has shown that it is not an exception that innocents conceive the death sentence. In , Timothy Evans was hung for the murder of his daughter. Today, detectives are almost certain that John Christie — also executed for the murder of seven persons — was the real assassin in this case.
This is only one of many known cases in which the convict was innocent. The justice system failed once again. Furthermore, it is also possible that people become executed, although they cannot be held responsible for their actions. In some states in the U. Another argument that is always mentioned in the explanation statement for capital punishment is that it is supposed to be a deterrent for assassinations.
However, scientific studies did not show any prove for a deterrent effect of capital punishment, nor does the abolition of the death penalty cause an increase in crimes and murders. The death penalty is irreversible. As already mentioned, people were falsely convicted of murder and were killed consequently. A justice system cannot guarantee the reliability of conviction. Thus, the state might kill even more innocent people.
Besides, a convict who murders today is not the same in 10 years. One of the main benefits of abolishing the death penalty is the immediate financial gain each state receives. In , Dr. Harold G Grasmick and Dr. Robert Bursik, Jr. Life imprisonment is far from cheap; but the cost is much less than the death penalty. In a report from the US Judicial Conference, it was reported that in cases where the death penalty was pursued costs were 4 times higher than cases where it was not.
This is not including costs incurred by law enforcement for investigative purposes. Based on statistics from the US Department of Justice, as of there were 3, people in prison under the sentence of death. This money could be used to improve social conditions that would potentially decrease crime in the inner cities.
Supporters of capital punishment like to tout the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. The only problem with this claim is that the facts do not back this statement up. In , the FBI released a uniform crime report that said the murder rate in the South had increased by 2.
If capital punishment were a true deterrent to crime, those states with higher numbers of executions would have lower or declining murder rates. In the majority of states with the death penalty, this is just not the case and in many instances is the opposite. The death penalty just does not deter criminals from committing murder. The most upsetting aspect of the death penalty is the way it is handled by the justice system. On average there are nine people exonerated from death row every year with many more filing viable appeals.
The justice system is not infallible so many innocent men have been sent to their death due to unfortunate circumstances. The execution of an innocent convict is no different from the murder of the innocent that they are being punished for. The pragmatic approach that was revealed can be interpreted as an attitudinal structure that reflects or facilitates the strong desire in Dutch sentencing practice to individualise sentences, i.
Chapter 5. We will return to this point shortly. Gender and years of experience in the criminal law division appeared to be the only characteristics substantially related to individual penal attitudes. Furthermore, female judges tend to be less favourable towards Incapacitation, Deterrence, and Desert than their male counterparts. In order to acquire an overall and well-founded impression regarding the link between supposed purposes and justifications of punishment and the actual practice of punishment, it is not sufficient simply to measure and analyse abstract penal attitudes.
A necessary further step is to examine the goals that judges pursue in specific criminal cases. Punishment in action was examined by means of a scenario study. This involved presenting judges with four criminal cases robbery cases and examining the differences in preferences for goals of punishment and sentencing decisions.
The cases employed in the scenario study were based on a selection from a large database of real cases that were heard by criminal courts in the Netherlands. The four cases that were presented to judges differed from one another in terms of the incorporation of pointers i.
Chapter 7. The study further aimed to determine whether or not substantial and consistent patterns of association exist between goals and sentences and also the relevance of abstract penal attitudes for pursuing particular goals of punishment in specific cases. Thus, for selected cases, the study was tailored to explore the consistency and relevance of sentencing goals in the light of sentencing decisions rather than to explain sentencing decisions.
Apparently, there is no commonly shared vision among Dutch judges in relation to the goals of punishment that apply in specific cases at least not with the goals that we have focused upon. A partial exception was the harsh treatment vignette, the most serious case in the scenario study, in which the majority of judges agreed about the relative low level of importance of rehabilitation and reparation as goals of punishment.
Moreover, it was shown that different types of criminal cases with different types of offenders elicit different types of variation in sentencing. In the most serious robbery case in the study i. While there was little variation among judges in choice of principal punishment i. This was due mainly to variations in choice of principal punishments as well as variations in the use of special conditions with suspended sentences.
While the judges evaluated the cases from the scenario study individually, in practice serious cases are tried by panels of three judges cf. In deliberations in chambers, such panels have to reach agreement amongst themselves on the sentence to be passed. To relieve the caseload of panels of judges in the Netherlands, it has been suggested that the competence of police judges unus iudex should be increased from six to twelve months imprisonment cf.
The wide variation in sentencing decisions among individual judges found in this study raises a cautionary note when considering such a change in the system. Before implementing such a change, the effect on sentencing disparity of trying more serious cases by judges sitting alone should be considered very seriously. The mitigating effects of consensus as a result of the deliberations by panels of judges should not be undervalued.
The relationship between preferred goals of punishment and sentencing decisions in the scenario study was examined in order to determine whether or not the variation in both sets of variables was linked in a consistent and substantial manner. Even though, with respect to the same cases, judges may differ amongst themselves, both in terms of their preferred goals of punishment as well as in their sentencing decisions, it is still possible for goals and sentences to be related in a consistent and meaningful way.
Overall, results show that preferences for goals of punishment were not very relevant for choosing a particular sanction, nor were sentencing decisions consistently rationalised by goals of punishment. As might be expected, however, the harsh treatment vignette constituted an exception.
In this case at best 18 percent of the variance in sentencing could be accounted for by variance in goal preferences. The two sets of variables were clearly associated along the lines of harsh treatment versus social constructiveness. Regarding the relationship between personal, case-independent, penal attitudes and preferred goals at sentencing, penal attitudes were expected to be of relevance only when pointers for the range of goals of punishment are equally present in a particular case.
In the balanced vignette i. Thus, the current study went looking for a clear and consistent link between justifications and goals of punishment derived from moral legal theory on the one hand, and the practice of punishment on the other. Such a link could not be established. The argument was put forward that if there is a consistent legitimising moral framework underlying the current practice of punishment, this should somehow be reflected by that practice.
This argument has been explored from several points of view. The overall structure in general penal attitudes reveals a pragmatic inclination that is insufficient to serve as a consistent and legitimising moral framework. In specific criminal cases there was no agreement on the goals of punishment to be aimed for.
Sentences in the same criminal cases differed widely and no substantial and consistent patterns of association between goals and sentences were found. Perhaps there are other mechanisms or processes, apart from those derived from moral legal perspectives that may provide sufficient justification and guidance for the practice of punishment. From the perspective adopted in this study, however, it seems safe to conclude that there is no consistent legitimising and guiding moral framework underlying the current practice of punishment.
While individualisation is valued in Dutch sentencing practice and judges may aim to individualise their sentences as much as possible, the scenario study has shown that individualisation can, depending on the sentencing judge, imply a wide variety of sentences in terms of type, severity, and special conditions for exactly the same criminal case.
In the light of these findings, individualisation has, in fact, two components: a judgecomponent and a case characteristics-component. The wish to individualise sentences may, for example, be in direct conflict with the principle of equality in sentencing. Concerns about equality in sentencing have increased in the Netherlands over the last decade and have led to various initiatives to enhance consistency in sentencing.
Without a commonly shared underlying moral framework or vision of punishment, the strict application of such essentially inanimate mechanisms may eventually lead to a bureaucratic equality in sentencing cf. Moreover, and perhaps paradoxically, in the absence of a commonly shared vision on the justification and goals of punishment, it remains questionable whether or not such mechanisms will ever be accepted or consistently applied by sentencing judges De Keijser, Perhaps cases similar to the harsh treatment vignette i.
The present study constitutes an appreciable simplification of the complex and dynamic process of sentencing in real life court cases. By choosing such an approach, however, the extreme dependence of judges on external influences and mechanisms has been shown. A commonly shared vision underlying criminal justice on fundamental moral principles and their practical implications may constitute a first line of defence against extra-judicial influences, such as short-term criminal politics e.
An intricate and at heart morally problematic institution such as legal punishment, that cannot fall back on and does not reflect a coherent underlying vision, will, in the long run, forfeit its credibility. On the part of policymakers, the necessity of normative and theoretical reflection already seems to become irrelevant or is even viewed as an obstacle cf.
The fact that we have not been able to establish a clear and consistent link between justifications and goals of punishment derived from moral theories and the practice of sentencing, may be attributed to a number of causes. If one accepts the basic premise of this study, namely that punishment is morally problematic and therefore needs a consistent and practically relevant moral justification, the present results should at least lead one to reconsider and discuss the justification and goals of punishment and the way in which they relate to our contemporary practice.
One argument may be that the theories of utilitarianism, retributivism, and restorative justice are in themselves plainly too awkward for practical purposes, i. Therefore, the gap between these legitimising theories of punishment and the actual practice cannot be bridged. Theoretical compromises, i. Hybrid theories, it has been argued, can very well disguise eclecticism in sentencing practice cf.
Chapter 2. A second argument takes the opposite point of view, i. While individual judges may have their own idiosyncratic models of the relationship between goals of punishment and specific sanctions, such a relationship is hard to discern at the aggregate level. These arguments are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, either way, a defective link between moral theory and the practice of legal punishment, as observed in this study, remains. This suggests, at least, two general and simultaneous courses of action.
First, the necessity of serious and fundamental theoretical reflection is evident. In this respect, it is striking that in the Netherlands the theoretical debate appears to have died out. To date, relatively few lawyers and scholars appear to attach great value to moral theorising. An important course of action would therefore be to revive the theoretical debate, not just for the sake of theorising, but rather for the sake of repairing the moral foundations of legal punishment with clear implications for sentencing practice.
A second and related course of action would be to put serious effort into reaching a consensus and to make the link between theoretically derived goals of punishment and actual sentences explicit. Such deliberations should not simply include principal punishments, but the whole array of sentencing options that are currently available to judges.
This requires serious reflection and, more importantly, would imply making certain commitments that may not be popular from a political perspective. While mixing cocktails consisting of a multitude of frequently conflicting goals may be smart from a short-term political point of view, it renders sentencing practice impalpable and difficult to legitimise. Currently, in the Netherlands, the unduly complex and fragmented nature of our sanctions system is being scrutinized.
The Department of Justice has recently suggested a number of ways to streamline the system cf. Incorporating explicit and well-considered notions of the link between punishment and purpose in such a process of streamlining is an opportunity for real improvement that should not be missed cf. Van Kalmthout, ; see also De Jong, These courses of action should constitute the first steps towards a sentencing practice that is less impalpable and more coherent.
Simultaneously they may stimulate a search for other methods of promoting disciplined conduct and social control cf. Garland, Obviously the debates should not be limited to the judiciary but must also be extended to the legislator and the government. The readiness of criminal justice officials, government, and the legislature to address these issues will depend on an acknowledgement that the current state of affairs is unsatisfactory.
Many people argue that this form of compensation is unethical, while others believe that the punishment is justified. This immensely controversial topic leads to many states outlawing […]. Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to relate many different criminological theories in regard to capital punishment. We relate many criminological theories such as; cognitive theory, deviant place theory, latent trait theory, differential association theory, behavioral theory, attachment theory, lifestyle theory, and biosocial theory.
This paper empirically analyzes the idea that capital punishment is […]. The death penalty costs more than life in prison. Springer documents how the death penalty convictions declined due to economic reasons. The death penalty dates back to the eighteenth century which was for 25 specific crimes. In, the Virginia governor opened up the death penalty for minor crimes such as stealing grapes DPIC.
In, […]. Capital Punishment is the legally authorized killing someone for committing a heinous crime. The O. Simpson case was the first of a long line of publicly televised trials. The trial lasted for days and people were consumed with it. It even had the attention of foreign leaders.
In there were a couple ways to measure crime and criminal behavior patterns. One of them was the National […]. Religious and moral values tell us that killing is wrong. Thou shall not kill. To me, the death penalty is inhumane. Killing people makes us like the murderers that most of us despise. No imperfect system should have the right to decide who lives and who dies.
The government is made up of imperfect humans, […]. Capital punishment is a universal problematic ideology under constant debate. Those that oppose the death penalty often agree that it is immoral for the government to take the life of an individual. They frequently state that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment, but our Constitution would never allow such punishments.
It states […]. George Walker Bush, a former U. Chapter 1: Introduction 1. Capital punishment has been used since ancient times. The earliest sign of capital punishment dates back to the eighteenth century BCE. In ancient Babylon, Greece and Asia […]. The Conservatives Concerned Organization challenges the notion that the death penalty is more cost effective compared to prison housing and feeding costs. The organization argues that the death penalty is an expensive lengthy and complicated process concluding that it is not only a bloated program that delays justice and bogs down the enforcement of the […].
Do you really learn not to be violent from that or instead do you learn how it is okay for moms or dads to hit their children in order to teach them something? This is exactly […]. The death penalty has been a controversial topic throughout the years and now more than ever, as we argue; Right or Wrong?
Moral or Immoral? Constitutional or Unconstitutional? The death penalty also known as capital punishment is a legal process where the state justice sentences an individual to be executed as punishment for a crime […]. They agree on most aspects, but disagree on one aspect.
Jefferson and King both have the same views for taxation, education, and crime […]. In , a female by the name of Shirley Crook was found dead in her home. Authorities arrested 17 year-old Christopher Simmons for the offense. They found that Simmons, in conjunction with two coconspirators, planned the burglarizing, kidnapping and death of Ms.
Prosecutors for the State of Missouri were effective in trying Simmons as […]. Death penalty, or capital punishment, are means of legal punishment that have been continuously analyzed and argued. Some serious criminal offenses are punishable by death most often violent homicides where the jury determines that the convicted offender lacks remorse. Capital punishment remains controversial and has been outlawed in many countries.
Many countries also still allow […]. This is in large part because of the views many have toward the rule of law or an acceptance to the status quo. In order to get a true scope of the death penalty, it is best to […]. The death penalty has been a source of almost constant controversy for hundreds of years, splitting the population down the middle with people supporting the death penalty and people that think it is unnecessary.
The amount of people that are been against the death penalty has grown in recent years, causing the amount of executions […]. The subject itself has the roots deep in the beginning of the humankind. It is interesting and maybe useful to learn the answer and if there is right or wrong in those actions. The decision if a person […]. Along with costly trials and imprisonments comes the possibility of wrongfully executing an innocent human being — something of which has unfortunately occurred after past death sentence trials.
The History of the death penalty goes as far back as ancient China and Babylon. However, the first recorded death sentence took place in 16th Century BC Egypt, where executions were carried out with an ax. Since the very beginning, people were treated according to their social status; those wealthy were rarely facing brutal executions; […]. Capital punishment is a death penalty that is put into impact for significant wrongdoings. Capital punishment is an exceptionally dubious theme in the Country and all through the world.
The United States has been divided by the death penalty debate, there are many supporters, however; there are also many who opposes it. However, we need to consider the possibility that other reasons might have lead to this rise. Calder neatly summarises this argument when he says that killers give up their rights when they kill and that if punishments are too lenient then it shows that we undervalue the right to live. There are other points too in support of the death penalty, one of these being cost.
It is obviously far cheaper to execute prisoners promply rather than feed and house them for years on end. The arguments against the death penalty are mainly ethical in their nature, that it is basically wrong to kill and that when the state kills it sends out the wrong message to the rest of the country.
This is an interesting argument — would you teach children not to hit by hitting them? There is also the fact that you might execute innocent people. Innocent people can always be released from prison, but they can never be brought back from the dead.
When people have been killed there is no chance of rehabilitation or criminals trying to make up for crimes. In conclusion, the arguments put forward by people who support or are against the death penalty often reflect their deeper principles and beliefs. These beliefs and principles are deeply rooted in life experiences and the way people are brought up and are unlikely to be swayed by clever arguments. It is interesting that in this country most people are in favour of the death penalty yet parliament continues to oppose it.
In this case it could be argued that parliament is leading the way in upholding human rights and continues to broadcast the clear message that killing is always wrong. An introduction in three parts: 1. A sentence saying why the topic is interesting and relevant. A sentence or two mentioning the difficulties and issues involved in the topic.
An outline of the essay.
Finished papers: This paper is you and you no longer want us to display it, to be: Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate Original, fresh, based on remove it. Submit your old papers to July 22, Free Essay Examples. Accessed 22 July Objective of friends using:. Please note that we cannot friends using:. Professional college phd essay help Delta Dissertation Examples. This is your chance to pay it forward. Accessed 22 July Capital Punishment. Types of College Essays. Note: this sample is kindly provided by a student like fellow students to learn from. Defending the human spirits: Jewish July 22, Free Essay Examples.My Conclusion. In my opinion, after analysing the arguments for and against capital punishment, I have concluded that the death penalty is morally right to. The practice of punishment, it has been argued, is a morally problematic practice and therefore needs a consistent (moral) justification. In the first place the conventional, accepted idea of proper treatment of convicted criminals is still the traditional one of punishment. Theories upon which.