I am doing my persuasive speech on abolishing the death penalty. Are you sure you want to delete this answer? For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons.
The worst thing about it. The system can make tragic mistakes. In , the state of Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham for starting the fire that killed his children. The Texas Forensic Science Commission found that the arson testimony that led to his conviction was based on flawed science. As of today, wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. Capital juries are dominated by people who favor the death penalty and are more likely to vote to convict.
Keeping killers off the streets for good: Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. Since the stakes are so high, the process is far more complex than for any other kind of criminal case. The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages. These apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.
The death penalty doesn't keep us safer. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent. The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender. How many people with money have been executed?? Every human deserves the chance at life, no matter what they have done and we cannot take that right away.
First Claim Starting Sentence Option 1: Example Claims for Death Penalty Criminals think twice before committing a crime that could get them a death sentence, which deters some crime and makes our country safer.
There is no cut and dried proof that an innocent man has ever been executed. Justice must be carried out and in some cases, that requires a death sentence for the person who has committed an atrocious crime. Example Claims Against Death Penalty Mistakes are made and innocent people have been sentenced to death. More than death row inmates have been exonerated since It is immoral to have someone commit murder in order to carry out the death penalty.
After all, the executioner is murdering the inmate. The death penalty is motivated by the need for revenge, which is not necessarily justice. Everyone deserves the right to life and that means an attempt to rehabilitate rather than kill, must be made, even in extreme cases.
Second Claim Starting Sentence Option 1: Third Claim Starting Sentence Option 1: Conclusion Starting Sentence Option 1: However, later on this type of punishment came to be regarded as a crime against humanistic ideals by many, and its validity in the legal system has been questioned. Until now, the debate rages on.
This resulted in a wide discrepancy of laws on this issue. Some nations including China, the US, Iran, Belarus, and others preserve the death penalty as an option, while others like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and almost all European nations have abolished capital punishment.
Still others keep the norm in their legislations, but have de facto suspended execution of criminals sentenced to capital punishment. This paper will seek to prove that death penalty has to be preserved as a valid means of prevention serious crimes. It will examine the effect of death penalty on society and its relevance to the protection of interests of common citizens. The history of death penalty is almost as old as the history of mankind.
Various means of capital punishment involved burning, hanging, drowning, crucifixion, breaking on the will, boiling to death, electrocution, firing squad, gassing - the list can be continued. The choice of a particular method in Europe in the Middle Age, for instance, depended on the social status of the condemned. Painless and respectable ways were reserved for the aristocracy; and more painful for the common people, such as hanging or breaking on the wheel. In other cases, the choice of the method was warranted by the time of crime: The French Revolution introduced a more humane execution method, the guillotine that cut off the heads of the condemned.
The duke cancelled the penalty and ordered to destroy all the instruments of murder in his nation after being influenced by the book the Italian Cesare Beccaria Dei Delitti e Delle Pene "On Crimes and Punishments". The anniversary of the decree is since celebrated as a holiday in Tuscany. In , as reports Amnesty International, 3, people in 25 nations were executed.
China accounts for the bulk of these executions - 3, cases. Kuwait is the leader in the number of executions per , residents - compared to in China and in Iran, the runner-up on the total number, Wikipedia. In most nations, death penalty is used to punish criminals for war crimes or serious crimes associated with physical injury. In Asia Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand it is used to punish for drug-related crimes, even though these crimes are mot related to physical injury.
As part of anti-death penalty movement, this call to repeal this measure has been upheld by various international organizations. Some international conventions such as the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights have been adopted, although they only bind nations that have ratified them.
Organizations like the European Union demand from new members the abolition of death penalty as a condition of entry. Thus, there is a significant pressure on nations to cancel it. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are two prominent organisations fighting against death penalty. The issues involved in the discussion of death penalty usually focus around two main parts.
First, this punishment is analysed from a purely utilitarian perspective in an effort to find out whether application of capital punishment really helps to deter crime and reduce the risk of recidivism, when criminals commit repeated crimes. The evidence for this is sought in crime rates in regions and nations where executions are carried out. Second, supporters or opponents of death penalty need to find out whether this penalty can be acknowledged on moral grounds, solving the problem of whether human beings are justified in killing other human beings.
Although the arguments stated remain basically the same throughout history of the discussion, evidence can vary, and the findings, although controversial, can tilt the public opinion to one or the other side. Thus, the support for death penalty surges in nations where especially outrageous murders take place.
On the contrary, a lower criminal rate reduces the support. Death penalty, in my view, has to be supported on the ground of just retribution for murder.
Still, I do not believe in death as a form of punishment for drug dealers, however heinous their activities might be, since they did not violate human lives. Political crimes should not be punished with death either, as this would open the way to political repression and physical elimination of political rivals, as it happened in Stalin's times in the Soviet Union.
However, when a person murders another person, death is the right kind of retribution. This is analogous to penalties imposed for instance for robbery or theft - the criminal often has to forfeit one's possessions for taking the property of another person.
Similarly, it is fair that one who has consciously taken the life of another person should suffer death. Susstein and Adrian Vermeule, the authors suggest that death penalty is morally justified on the basis of distinction between acts and omissions. Most opponents of death penalty argue that it is barbaric for a government to take a human life since there is a difference between an act, such as killing a person, and omission, such as refraining from the act.
But, researchers argue, by forbidding official penalty, government officials de facto allow numerous private killings that are left unpunished. Therefore, punishing the criminals is a necessary part of any state policy.
The interests of victims or potential victims of murders cannot be overlooked in order to consider the interests of the criminals guilty of the most heinous crime - taking a person's life. One of the most important arguments in favor of death penalty is the fact that it helps to deter capital crimes. This issue is debatable since there have been suggestions that application of death penalty has no serious effects on the rate of murders, for instance.
Besides, opponents of death penalty claim that it is not possible to deter so-called crimes-of-passion committed in an emotionally affected state when a person is not capable of thinking about future punishment.
Argument for your persuasive. Open textbook. Want to Buy an Essay Online, Persuasive Speech Outline Of Against The Death Penalty, from a Reputable Writing Company But Don't Want to End Up. This list is for you! Persuasive Speech Outline - Free download as Word Doc .doc /.docx), PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free.
Persuasive Speech Outline on Death Penalty Type of paper: Speeches Subject: Society & Family Words: If you are looking for a persuasive and controversial topic for your speech, the death penalty is the exact one you need.
Topic: Death Penalty Specific Purpose: To persuade against the capital punishment Intro: If an automobile company had cars that would cause death one out of every eight times, would you buy from that company? Of course you wouldn’t. No one would accept that many innocent deaths%(14). Persuasive Speech against the death penalty Today I want to inform you about a very, very serious topic. This topic deals with live and death. I want to give you my personal opinion as well as some basic facts against the death penalty in the USA that is still used as a normal punishment for murderers in many states - for example Ohio.
Persuasive Speech Outline Essay examples Words | 4 Pages Persuasive Speech Outline Topic: Organ Donation General Purpose: To persuade Specific Purpose: After listening to my speech my audience will consider donating their organs and tissues after death and to . A. INTRODUCTION Tells your audience what you are going to tell them and establish the foundation for your speech. A good Introduction 'draws the map' for the journey. Just like your Informative Speech, a Persuasive Speech, an Introduction consists of.