Skip Nav

Persuasive Speech Death row/penalty – The case against

Persuasive Essay on Death Penalty: Pros and Cons

❶The anniversary of the decree is since celebrated as a holiday in Tuscany. In the recent past, national authorities have embraced correctional policies in a bid to persuade citizens to stop engaging in criminal activities.

Client testimonials

You May Also Like
This Speech Includes:

The last paragraph of the essay should include the thesis restated, as well as a summary of your main points. Your argumentative essay will fall flat without solid facts to back it up. This section is where you will list your sources and references.

Use citation generating tools, such as EasyBib. Introduction Starting Sentence Option 1: You cannot rehabilitate some people and these people should be put to death. If the person is killed, they cannot fix their ways. 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: Evidence of repeat offenders returning to normal life is scarce, and instances of recidivism are abundant.

Once again, the solution depends on the main goal set for the legal system: If we side with those who believe that the system should in the first place support those who are law-abiding, the focus will be on prevention of deaths though murders as the greatest evil generated by crime. Despite the above-mentioned deterrent effect, we cannot effectively prevent crimes by first-time offenders. It is much easier to prevent those by repeat offenders. One of the most outrageous instances supporting the above claim was the incident that happened in Alabama prison in Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, 25, an inmate who was serving life without parole for 3 murders was found guilty of killing a fellow inmate Recidivism.

The killer was finally sentenced to electrocution. However, if he had been sentenced to death right after the first murder, the other three could have been prevented. The life of an inmate who died at the hands of Peraita is no less valuable than his own. In fact, I strongly believe that it could have been more valuable: Maybe that person was not guilty of such a heinous crime as murder? Unfortunately, there is too much evidence that certain individuals tend to commit murder while others are less prone to it.

Death penalty would then free society from the return of such individuals. Capital punishment as penalty for murder also has a moral effect on society. It signals to the criminals that murder is a serious crime the community feels strongly about. In fact, it creates the useful perception of human life as something so precious that taking it has no justification. Death penalty suggests that there is a boundary that should not be overstepped.

This should send a message to society members that taking a person's property, however reprehensible, is not to be condemned via taking a life. On the contrary, murder will not be tolerated, and people who have committed this crime should be removed from society as incapable of social living.

Another common argument given in favour of death penalty is an economical consideration. Comparisons differ depending on the bias of the people carrying out the comparison. However, these extra expenses have to be diminished through increasing the cost-efficiency of the legal system, and society that is spending huge amounts on legal services would benefit from such a reform. Just considering the cost of keeping a year-old inmate incarcerated till the end of one's life is startling and endorses the view that society has to select death penalty as a cheaper option.

Opponents of death penalty have given a number of arguments to support their position. In the first place, it is opposed by people on religious grounds. Representatives of various religious groups claim that only God can take a human life and human being are then not sanctioned to kill each other. However, in the Hebrew Scriptures there is evidence that Jews applied death penalty to criminals for selected types of crime.

The couple was killed for lying about the size of the proceeds from the sale of a house in an effort to conceal part of their income. Proceeding to the Christian Scriptures, one finds some evidence that was said to be indicative of Christ's opposition to death penalty questionable. Thus, there is a renowned episode with the female sinner John 8: Jesus was not in fact censuring the right to kill the woman according to the ancient law.

Besides, there is evidence suggesting that this passage was not present in the original version of the Scripture and was later added by an unknown person Religious Tolerance.

Besides, the passage from Matthew 5: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment Thus, Christian intolerance of death penalty appears doubtful. To negate death first of all would mean the moratorium on wars that take lives of more people than death penalty.

The war casualties are often innocent peaceful people who just happened to be caught in the cross-fire, unlike recidivist criminals who end up on death row. Yet most Christian states prepare military doctrines and demonstrate to each other readiness to employ their military machine to kill people if necessary.

Still others are practicing war if it suits their political goals. How significantly will then abolition of death penalty forward the goal of living a Christian life? The same argument applies to the anti-death penalty claim that the legal system should not be allowed to execute because there is a possibility of a legal mistake that will result in the death of a wrong person NCWC. On these grounds, wars have to be forbidden in the first place since they keep killing people that are not to blame at all.

They either do their best fighting for their motherland in expectation of a heroic death or just, as mentioned before, get caught in cross-fire. Thus, any nation that does not exclude a war should not exclude death penalty that is a much more balanced mechanism. Besides, the legal system is unfortunately prone to mistakes, as are all social institutions, but this does not mean that they should not be used to carry out their functions.

Most other penalties like imprisonment take a heavy toll on human life, yet they are applied to criminals, even if there is a threat of ruining a person's life by mistake. Besides, returning to the incident in Alabama in the previous section, a person dying at the hands of an acknowledged murderer in prison is also a fatal mistake of the legal system.

If the system rightfully recognized the capacity to continue killing in the criminal, his final victim would have saved his life.

First, it is still preserved in many nations including the US that fits into many criteria of a civilized country. Besides, quite a few nations that have it in their penal codes like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Barbado, Bangladesh enjoy a relatively low crime rate.

This underscores that death penalty adequately serves the main purpose of the legal system: There are many more issues that can be considered with regard to death penalty. One can evaluate the racist argument, for instance, claiming that death penalty is more often imposed on Afro-Americans than European Americans and see how it relates to crime rate in the two groups.

Besides, ethical perspectives on this issue can be diverse and supported by many different theories. With the arguments presented above, however, it seems clear that there are many valid reasons in support of death penalty.

On the contrary, anti-death penalty arguments need to be assessed critically, as, for instance, the religious argument. Further research into the topic is necessary, with more authoritative studies on the deterrent effect of death penalty on the criminal rates, tracing various states in the US as well as evidence from other nations.

It would also be interesting to examine the historical background of nations that have both capital punishment in their law codes and extremely low crime rate to see how death penalty affects crime rates. On the more practical level, it is my deepest belief that currently capital punishment has to be preserved in order to protect potential victims. Any consideration of the crime rate cancellation would become viable if the crime rate at least for murders goes sharply down. At present, however, capital punishment serves as an important barrier on the way of criminals ready to take another person's life.

North Carolina Weslyan College. All Points Of View. Journal of Legal Studies, vol. Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder.


Main Topics

Privacy Policy

View Notes - persuasive speech outline from CJ at University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire. Topic: Specific Purpose: Death Penalty To persuade against the capital punishment Intro: If an automobile%(14).

Privacy FAQs

Let’s look at the persuasive speech outline, specially developed on the death penalty subject, which will definitely steer you in the right direction for delivering the greatest speech. 1. First, create an exciting title to make your speech compelling to your listeners. 2.

About Our Ads

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. “The Death penalty goes against the bill of rights” First logic The death penalty has been used throughout history and past the ratification of the constitution.

Cookie Info

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 . Nov 20,  · Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty Death Penalty - Words  Capital punishment is a prudent issue that creates a spectacle among those for and against the death penalty.