Prior to this week\'s module I held the belief that the death penalty was justif
ID: 3458344 • Letter: P
Question
Prior to this week's module I held the belief that the death penalty was justified because I believed that the person being punished deserved it. I never thought about the possibility of the prosecution of an innocent person due to a false accusation. I also thought that keeping a person in prison was more costly than simply killing the person. It is correct to say that my perception of the death penalty has changed. If a person is falsely accused and imprisoned then later found to be innocent, the person can be freed with compensation for the time lost. Whereas with the death penalty, a lost life cannot be brought back. While I know that time is invaluable and cannot be fully compensated with money, it will do more good than harm. So I argue that imprisonment for life without parole is better than the death penalty. At least the former punishment gives the possibly innocent prisoner a chance to prove that he/she is being falsely imprisoned. 2. In your second post, choose another student's initial contribution to the thread, and comment critically and meaningfully on it. Critical evaluation doesn't mean that you must disagree -- however, if you come to the same conclusion as someone, you should still contribute something substantial and meaningful to the conversation. Can you think of factors that the student didn't consider, but that may support his/her conclusion? If you disagree, explain why, again, in a substantial, critical, and meaningful post. Finally, if Nathanson and/or Berns were here participating in the conversation, what do you think they would say about the thread you are working on? Would they agree or disagree with you or the student? Why? Your last post is
Explanation / Answer
I agree with the post regarding death penalty because a life once taken cannot be given back. If one’s innocence is proven at a later point and if death penalty is already administered, the whole society should be ashamed of murdering someone and throwing the victim’s family in deep grief. Another reason I agree with the post is that it takes more money to administer death penalty than keeping a person in prison without parole. So, there are possibilities that the person may be innocent and he could be released from prison if proved not guilty with a financial compensation, besides, eye for eye is not a right thing in today’s humanitarian concept. If killing is done in retaliation for killing by law, what is the difference between the killer and the society and its law? So, I completely agree that an eye for an eye is not a good choice and capital punishment is not a viable punishment.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.