Skip Nav

Capital punishment argumentative essay good introduction: Doing homework in morning

Part One - The Legal effects of the re-introduction of capital punishment

❶Some criminals will continue to commit crimes because they know prison can serve them better than the life outside.

You May Also Like

Blog Archive
Writing services
1.2 Effects of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR

The introduction will let the reader know where you stand on the topic of the death penalty. Starting Sentence Option 1: Starting Sentence Option 2: In fact, the death penalty is [thesis statement]. Bureau of Justice Capital Punishment. Death Penalty Fact Sheet. Present your first claim for or against capital punishment. The entire paragraph should focus on the claim. It becomes obvious that [state first claim]. If you look at [evidence], it clearly shows that [state first claim]. Further proof can be found in [state reference], where [expert name] discovered [discovery].

This clearly shows that [state second claim]. A study done in [date] by [researcher name], showed that [statistics]. This section will show the third claim and back it up with statistics and expert information. However, the court gave a possibility that the punishment could be constitutional if imposed on extreme crimes and applied in a standard way.

The punishment was limited to murder and violations, which could lead to a loss of innocent life. In most of these states, there was a clear or specified circumstance under which a jury or judge could implement this form of punishment. In Georgia, Texas, and Florida, this law was upheld against three men convicted of murder. The court ruled that the death penalty for the murder was not constitutionally severe. However, it questioned and out ruled laws that make capital punishment mandatory for some crimes.

These laws were also legalized under military laws or federal laws. United States is the western developed nation where the practice is still being practiced, others like United Kingdom and Canada abolished the punishment in and respectively. The methods of implementation of punishment and the crimes subject to the punishment vary according to the jurisdiction and have diverse widely throughout time.

It has been banned by others, suspended by some, and others still want to expand it applicability. In , 37 executions were committed in the United States of America; this is considered the lowest number per year since This execution was done through lethal injection, which has brought heated debate in the states since its use. The execution in rose to In Virginia, one was executed by electric chair and in Utah another one gone by firing squad. The punishment has faced opposition, with people arguing that it is cruel and takes life that should be sacred until the creator decides to terminateit.

Critics believe that some mistakenly convicted prisoner might be executed unfairly. Supporters believe that he, who takes another man's life his should be taken. It is true that this form of punishment deters crime rates from rising and safeguards the society from dangerous criminals. Capital punishment has always been a contentious public issue in America; in history, a number of Americans supporting it in favor of murder has been huge, but it is gradually decreasing over time.

Currently, the number of individuals supporting it has been lower than that of 's, but has been static. Hundreds of persons have been punished in America since the Supreme Court allowed capital punishment against aggravated murder and other serious crimes. Thousands have been condemned and more are still waiting the result of legal appeals.

Reasons why it is supported in America A society must protect its citizen, even if this call for severe punishment to protect the lives of citizens. If the state fails to execute murderers, and doing so would deter other killers, it allows the killing of a huge number of innocent victims. It is better for the authorities to execute the guilty to safeguard the innocent than to protect the criminals.

The society goes through a lot of troubles if the known murderers are left unpunished or given parole after a period in jail. When the law is perceived to be ineffective, individuals normally take the law into their hands leading to mob executions.

Another reason why capital punishment is supported is that taxpayers should not be subjected to supporting criminals living in comfort for years. The alternative sentence to death punishment is always life imprisonment; this form of punishment allows the criminals who do not need taxpayers support benefit from their sweats. Living standard is very high, and subjecting innocent and even the victims of the crimes to shoulder the criminal upkeep in prison is very inappropriate Sarah, This is the only severe punishment enough to deter criminals from committing major crimes.

Further to this, due process is equally flawed where the prosecution is set the task of persuading the jury to condemn the defendant to death. The argument here therefore, is that, in non warlike scenarios, and where self defence does not enter the equation, no one should be required to engage in the facilitation of involuntary killing as part of their career. There is also a second argument, namely that due process extends beyond the trial and continues throughout the sentence so that appeals may be lodged where new evidence comes to light.

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont stated in that he was greatly concerned over the fact that, since , 85 prisoners on death row were exonerated on the basis of new evidence and that a number of these had occurred only days before execution.

He asserts that the issue is not one of a mere state or two, but is nationwide, thereby making academic analysis of the US system an ideal national focus as opposed to mere State-to-State comparison. Clearly, for those that are exonerated after death, there is utter futility and pointlessness with the exception of empty and shell like, posthumous dignity.

In order to combat this, the Innocence Protection Act was passed in with the aim of:. Most urgently, the bill would afford greater access to DNA testing by convicted offenders, and help States improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases. This is once again an attempt to gloss over the deprivation of due process that is taken at the point of death and is clearly a savage desire to retain the death penalty to the expensive extent to installing legislation for the purpose of ensuring as fair a trial as possible.

This therefore allows for the common but unannounced practice of reverse judgement whereby a decision is reached prior to the submission of counsel for both the prosecution and the defence and ratio are devised in order to justify he finding in law.

However, unlike the ECHR, there is no express prohibition of the death penalty, as located under protocols 6 and 13 to the Convention, which means that the whole question of abolishment lies in the exclusive hands of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Therefore, as a matter of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is set the task of independently interpreting the Constitution, whereas the EU has made it perfectly clear that this issue is far too profound to be considered judicially.

The standpoint of the EU on the concept of the death penalty is outwardly precise and any attempt of the UK to introduce this form of sentencing would cause a direct breach of protocol 13, thereby going against the policy under the s 3 1 of the Act, which states that all legislation is to be read as being in accordance with the provisions of the ECHR. The enactment of incompatible legislation would fall foul of investigation by the House of Lords, who would be entitled under s 4 of the Act to decree that such legislation is incompatible.

Hypothetically speaking, should the House of Lords decide not to take this step, private individuals would be entitled to seek recourse to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg by pleading Protocol 13 outright and winning by a unanimous judicial decision on account of the UK ratification of this amendment to the ECHR.

Therefore, in essence, if the UK is truly determined to re-introduce the death penalty, they would have to take the drastic step of leaving the EU. The requirement to leave the EU in the event of re-introducing the death penalty is further demonstrated by the fact that the legal obligation for EU Membership entails the need to adhere to European Law and ratification of the Treaties, which in their own right, also specify that any country may join.

However, in addition to this, the EU summit in Copenhagen set out in the Copenhagen Criteria , specific conditions that would need to be satisfied in order to join the EU. There are four such criteria of which three are largely political in nature. The one and only legally based criteria is a proviso to the reception of EU law, which states that the candidate countries must have the requisite administrative infrastructure that would be able to uphold and utilize EU Law.

The European Commission did however acknowledge that the de facto moratorium of , to carrying out the process of abolishing the death penalty had been adhered to. This is discussed further in part two in a political context.

By the time of the most recent Report , Turkey has now in fact abolished the Death Penalty and did so in by signing the Sixth Protocol. This therefore means that Turkey now outlaws the death penalty both in and out with peacetime and the country is well on its way to developing the legal structure that is necessary for EU Membership. By contrast to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, international treaties do not carry the same bite and are not immediately reprehensible against in the event of breach.

There is however an hierarchy of provisions, which are best described in descending order of rank. This document expresses international recognition of the guarantee of equality for all individuals. The contents of the declaration are themselves very much aimed at anti-discrimination and this is most clearly expressed in Article 2. However, in terms of the death penalty, there are two reasons why this specific declaration is not helpful. Firstly there are two useful sources of language for the death penalty.

The first is the right to life under Article 3 and the second is Article 5 which states that:. However, pro-capital punishment lobbyists would argue that there is nothing in the declaration that prohibits retribution and that therefore, the right to life can be forfeited in extreme and justifiable circumstances. Further to this and in contrast, anti-capital punishment lobbyists argue that torture and degrading punishment are integral to punishment by death, regardless of the reason.

Interpretation is therefore a question of discretion. The second reason why the Universal Declaration is not useful is that, as an international agreement, assignation to it is wholly voluntary and, as will be shown below in relation to global political influences, super powers adhere to international agreements as and when they choose to do so but the feeling of obligation is wholly absent.

Article 6 is a clear plea for States that continue to practice the penalty to abolish it outright. With regard to the nature of obligations that must be adhered to by those States that ratify the ICCPR, the single requirement is for the limiting of the death penalty to only the most heinous of crimes. Interestingly, paragraph 7 of General Comment 6 to the ICCPR also provides exception to the use of the penalty where there is maintenance of due process via trial safeguards, the right to review and the possibility for those condemned to death to seek a pardon or commutation of sentence to that of life imprisonment or less.

Rather than setting out to politely ask States to abolish the death penalty and set out limitations for those who do not, the Second Optional Protocol aims to actually abolish the practice altogether. The preamble of the Protocol is clear on this matter and states that the death penalty:. The Protocol continues in Article 1 by demanding the cessation of the death penalty and the adoption of all possible measures that would facilitate. In December , the UK ratified the Second Optional Protocol, which means that any re-introduction of the death penalty would result in a direct breach of International Law.

The report would express grievances as to failure of the UK to ensure that steps are carried out to abolish the death penalty, which are in accordance with the Second Optional Protocol.

There is however also a political contrast between the written laws of a nation and international treaties, which is that superpowers will do as they please. This was again a blatant move that vehemently ignored UN protocol.

The result of a history of defiance from the USA and the king making actions of the UK over Iraq only facilitate to weaken the strength of the entire International Law concept and the integrity of the reason for the existence of the UN. As will be shown in relation to the UK in Part Two, this kind of behavour seriously damages the image of States on the international, political scene. There is however the political consideration of convention, which despite being wholly a matter of non-obligatory self-governance , will remain as a virtually solid reassurance of the promise of permanency for the Human Rights Act The potential for amendment will therefore only ensue where the purpose will be to enhance as opposed to reduce the protections under it.

However, politics are, by definition, defined by the majority and are always liable to change as the unending cultural journey of social perceptions of right and wrong constantly alter. In years to come it is highly likely that the current political climate will be known as the era of Human Rights and in the UK this time is at the very of core of reforms that took Human Rights from the unwritten to the written medium. The highlights of this heightened political activity were no doubt at their utmost peak during the passing of both the Human Rights Act and the Scotland Act , which saw the re-creation of the Scottish Parliament.

Again Rowe, as a Conservative MP, is eager to press the point that devolution was a publicity stunt and establishes this by pointing out that the Scotland Act specifies an acutely limited spectrum of independent powers for those MPs who represent constituencies north of the border. It is therefore clear that this weakening of public confidence in public law reforms by Labour has abruptly placed constitutional reform onto the back shelf of manifesto policies and we should be in no doubt that a written UK constitution is not going to appear any time soon.

However, whether this means that the Human Rights concept will become a matter of mere later 20th century, early 21st century buzz word is yet to be seen. In relation to the death penalty, the British stance on this form of punishment has a domestic history that is far older than the British journey through Human Rights.

This therefore means that regardless of the stance that internal politics may take in the future with regard to Human Rights, the continued illegality of a death penalty will no doubt outlive this concept should subsequent regimes deem it obsolete. Further to this, UK internal and EU policies are matched on this point and the political significance of this is explained below under Part 2. However, the UK displays clear allegiance to EU political policies by virtue of ratification of the ECHR, but can it be said that such ratification represented any strong move to surrender sovereignty?

It is crucial to contemplate the ratification by Britain to the 6th protocol as late as by contrast to the execution of the provision by the EU Perhaps the reason for this delay was due to the fact that Britain had already abolished the death penalty earlier in and any subsequent affirmation by ratification to an EU Convention amendment would constitute a mere formality.

Clearly, by signing Protocol 6, the UK was making a positive move to deliberately incorporate it within the provisions of the Act as well as create a strengthened allegiance with the EU. It is therefore no surprise that the subsequent ratification of the Thirteenth Protocol took place in under the same Government with the same pro European policies.

In addition, the Copenhagen Criteria also sets out slightly more political requirements that are to be satisfied in order to successfully enter the EU. There are two politically orientated conditions, of which the first is that the candidate for EU membership must have a stable political infrastructure and institutions that guarantee the maintenance of democracy, adherence to the law, human rights and the protection of minority groups within their boarders.

The second is that the country must have a functioning economy with a clear ability to handle the competition that is rife within the EU. However it was generally felt at the time that this was a tightrope for the Turkish Government who would have been keen to seize the opportunity to demonstrate their intended allegiance to EU law but would have been aware of the political pawn that they had created with this criminal.

Unfortunately, this move is arguably an interesting insight into reverse legal evolution that could have a devastating effect for Europe. What is meant by this is that, as illustrated by part 1. By contrast, Turkey is carrying out the legal revolution before there is the requisite political climate in its population that would demand such alterations. This is made clear by the grizzly fact that English printed news papers in the larger cities such as Istanbul and the Capital, Ankara, reveal that, on average, there are honour killings each year in Turkey.

The most startling fact is, additionally, that these killings are based not only on defiance of a daughter to marry the man chosen by her family, but this extends also to women seeking an education prior to marriage or independent employment for the purpose of personal sufficiency. The revelation of this contrast between the legal reforms in Turkey and their very Middle Eastern based political and social policy represents a deep concern for the potential futility of the subsequent legal reforms.

Search This Blog

Main Topics

Privacy Policy

Capital Punishment. There have been many controversies on the topic of capital punishment and its role within society. Capital punishment is also known as the "death penalty." This is when a person has committed a crime that is punishable by death via fatal injection.

Privacy FAQs

Capital punishment varies from country to country, place to place. Some places it is just fast beheading or hanging, while in other places, it is full of torture and slow death. In religion, me being a Muslim, has to follow the Islamic Sharia'a, which includes capital punishment and it is the choice of the victims family to give capital punishment to the criminal or not.

About Our Ads

Custom Capital Punishment Essay Writing Service || Capital Punishment Essay samples, help Introduction Capital punishment is a mode of punishment by execution or death for committing serious crimes, and one is seen as dangerous to the society. Debate against death penalty essaysThe death penalty has always been a very controversial issue. Death sentences are usually handed out to people who have been found guilty of capital crime. However it is not so easy to consider death penalty as an easy way to punish the guilty.

Cookie Info

Example Essay for the IELTS Academic Task 2 WritingCapital punishment is the killing of a criminal for a crime that he has committed. Previously most countries employed this method of punishment but nowadays it is much less widely used. Introduction to Death penalty. The death penalty also called as Capital Punishment is one of the legal process in which a person is punished and put to death for a crime by the state. It is considered as the ultimate denial of the human rights.