How to turn a persuasive essay into a speech?
Daryl Holden, 45, is strapped in completely, arms tied down, restraints crisscrossed across his chest, head restraint in place. He is a few minutes from dying. Ten years earlier he turned himself in for the murder of his four young children. He was later sentenced to death. But, his execution begs the question; will it really serve any purpose? Most experts are divided on the answer. The death penalty is used as one of the main deterrents to homicide, but it is questionable whether or not it is effective in that respect. Despite the debate, capital punishment is legal in most states and all but Kansas, New Jersey and New Hampshire have conducted at least one execution since 1976 (Barry). Capital punishment is still used as a crime deterrent, but there is not enough evidence to support the claim that it is an effective crime deterrent; therefore, it should be ceased and more effort should be put into judicial process, thus, doubling the odds of conviction instead of doubling the harshness of the punishment.
Of the many studies conducted, none have produced definitive evidence to support the claim that capital punishment is an effective deterrent against crime. Steve Inskeep from NPR’s “Morning Edition” stated that nobody, “has any real evidence to work with” (Nagin). With no substantial evidence to base claims off of, one cannot say that capital punishment deters homicide. This issue was recently looked at by the National Research Council. The council did not consider morals but rather looked at the statistics and science to evaluate the effectiveness of executions on homicide rates (Nagin). Later on in the interview, Daniel Nagin, a representative of the Council, makes the point, “nobody is well-served by unsupportable claims… that the death penalty deters homicide…” (Nagin). The researchers, led by Nagin, came to the conclusion that there is no support for the claim that capital punishment is an effective homicide deterrent and most information that says it is, lacks credibility.
Yet another example of how the death penalty is not an effective crime deterrent comes from a study run in California. When the results came back, it was determined that there are some positive effects of capital punishment, but those effects are most likely to be insignificant and short lived. The study showed that there were only short-term decreases in homicides following highly publicized executions (Grogger). These results go to show that while some short term benefits may exist immediately following an execution, there is not enough evidence to keep capital punishment instated. Based on this study, one of two things needs to happen. Either capital punishment is stopped or the rate of executions needs to increase in the state of California. However, by contrast, the state of Texas conducts 30 times more executions and the homicide rate there has not been sufficiently reduced. But, that does not mean that the issue is not still up for debate
Proponents of capital punishment state that there is a reduction in homicides following an execution. Many also say that capital punishment guarantees that dangerous criminals will never walk the streets again while others argue that capital punishment is only used when well deserved. Only the worst criminals receive a death sentence which usually means that they had killed several people. However, it is also true, and often overlooked, that life in prison will produce that same result.
If given a life sentence with no chance of parole and put in a high-security prison, a criminal will never walk the streets again. In most high security prisons/prison areas, an inmate is only allotted one hour outside of his or her cell a day and has no human contact with anyone other than guards. This route is also safer and has less risk involved. While it is seemingly small, the risk is the execution of an innocent man. An article in the Chicago Tribune published in 1985 stated that, “Twenty-five innocent people have been executed in the United States since 1900 and more than 300 have been wrongly convicted of capital crimes...” (“Wrongfully”). Twenty-five is not a very large number, but it is horrible for those who were put to death for a crime they did not commit. It would also be tremendously hard on the families of those victims, especially after those people were found to be innocent.
What is worse is that the death of those people did not save the lives of others or have any lasting effects on homicide rates. A study run in Texas from January 1994 through December 2005 showed, “short-term reductions in homicides… in the first and fourth months that follow an execution- about 2.5 fewer homicides total,” (Land). This same article goes on to state that another model showed a reduction of only .5 homicides during a 12-month period (Land). These statistics apply to the entire state of Texas. This means that, for every two years, approximately one life
Comments
Its very good. Just one mistake:
Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have had no executions since 1976. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state_by_state)
Some of the other things you included are out of date:
For example, there are no 141 known cases where a wrongly convicted person was sentenced to death. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-deat...
Here's my take, with sources below:
For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it doesn’t reduce crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.
The worst thing about it. Errors:
The system can make tragic mistakes. As of now, 141 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. We’ll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn’t commit. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.
Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death penalty
Costs, a big surprise to many people:
Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. The process is much 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.
Crime reduction (deterrence):
Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent. The death penalty is no more effective in deterring others than life sentences.
Who gets it:
The death penalty magnifies social and economic inequalities. It 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.
Victims:
Like no other punishment, it subjects families of murder victims to a process which makes healing even harder. Even families who have supported it in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.
It comes down to whether we should keep the death penalty for retribution or revenge.
issac:
I find Nagin and the NRC review not credible, based upon:
The Chair of this study is Daniel Nagin, theTeresa and H. John Heinz III University Professor of Public Policy and Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University, since January, 2006 (2)
'
Nagin's income is financed by a liberal anti death penalty foundation (3).
The conflict of interest could not be more obvious or severe.
Two of the three funding groups for this study are:
Tides Foundation and the Proteus Action League, with Tides getting major funding from Heinz (4).
Both are huge grant providers for the anti death penalty movement (4).
The conflict of interest could not be more obvious or severe.
For me, it is astounding that this could happen.
Note that Nagin, et al, were commenting on a few recent studies and what they found were problems with them. They never said that the death penalty does not deter. That is because they cannot.
In addition, we know that all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism.
So the only question is "Does the death penalty deter more than life?" . The evidence is solid that it does.
Please review:
1) LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION:
99.7% of murderers tells us "Give me life, not execution"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-much-pr...
2) See sections C and D within
The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalt...
3) "DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE CLARIFIED"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/death-penalt...
4) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalt...
5) DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/deterrence-d...
it would want to help in case you gave us the problem of your paper. enable's say that you wrote an informative paper about climate change, describing the cycles that the elements has lengthy handed by. you would possibly want to then provide a persuasive speech to cajole human beings to regulate their habit as a way to end international warming. Of in case you wrote an informative paper about the heritage of your community. you would possibly want to now provide a persuasive speech about what human beings residing contained locally desire to do to maintain its historic previous- keep with community merchants, as an example, or petition the city council to end scaling down timber to construct roads.