Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl Report: Is the dead penalty zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj effective?

klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyu iopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
19/11/2012

Is the dead penalty effective?


Good morning! , ladies and gentleman

What I'm going to talk about today is the dead penalty, is really effective and if we need to use it. Im giving you this presentation because my objective is to learn more about the death penalty is it effective? Should we use it? It stops crime? Is it profitable? Can you be guilty of innocent deaths?

The main points I will be talking about are:

First, what is the death penalty?

Second, stop the death penalty the crimes?

Next, is it cost-effective the death penalty?

Finally, we are going to look at how effective as a preventive method is the death penalty.

To start, I would like to say that the death penalty acts as a deterrent factor is based on the following assumptions:
1)

Remove the life to the sentenced is a rational act.

2)

It does that other criminals, for fear of losing his life, avoid committing crimes subject to be penalized with such judgment.

3)

The criminals who decide to deprive another human life are not restorable.

4)

These people only deserve to die at the hands of the State. Another point which is often regarded as advocates of the death penalty is that it is cost effective. Whereas criminal overcrowding in prisons and the costs of maintaining closed to the confined, the death penalty is then, the cheapest and most effective solution. So, Id like to illustrate this by showing you the following picture which illustrates the penalty for committing parricide in nineteenth-century China. Who does not know who commits parricide kills his father, mother or any other blood relative and ascending direct line, whether legitimate or illegitimate? In nineteenth-century China, so it looks in the drawing that we have found, patricide was punished with the death of the guilty but carried out in a manner certainly wild: the condemned was cut with a saw leaving his body in two halves.

If it has seemed that the drawing represents a brutal scene, best not seen picture of the application of the penalty of death by Leng T method ' che, which consisted of slowly slicing the body of the condemned, and when I say slice I say that the condemned person they cut him the chest, arms, legs: the prisoner was tied naked to a post, first cut his left pectoral, then it appeared the right, were then detached biceps and thighs, to proceed to the dismemberment and decapitation. This whole process was trying to keep the victim alive and conscious. That image was a bit strong, but previously, be towards that as death penalty although nowadays not practiced that, because to become difficult to understand because this way of dying was very agonizing.

And now lets move on the next point: stop the death penalty the crimes?

Several studies have attempted to examine whether the death penalty acts as deterrent cash or if on the contrary, is

better a sentence in prison when the offence committed deserves it. The first study in this direction was made by Robert Dann in 1935. Dann, to examine the number of crimes committed sixty days after the execution of five convicted prisoners who received much publicity, is that the crimes increased rather than reduced. Subsequent studies that followed the same methodology came to a similar conclusion. A possible explanation for this phenomenon lies in the brutal effect that sets criminals are motivated to challenge the death penalty when it receives attention on the part of the authorities and the public. It seems that they say "paid brutality with brutality".

Only one study, carried out by the Economist Isaac Ehrlich (1975), tends to corroborate the thesis that the death penalty reduces crime. In short, most of the studies, despite their possible limitations statistics tend to confirm that the death penalty is not a deterrent to reduce crimes. So, why do some people still support this option? A survey of public opinion conducted in the mid-1970s by Widmar and Ellsworth (1974) reveals that 90 percent of the citizens who support the death penalty in United States, would still be in favor of it although not detains the crime. It seems that the old adage of "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" is the one that prevails in them.

Id like to expand on this aspect therefore analyze if the death penalty is cost-effective. Although there appears to be a study of costs and benefits on the application of the death penalty, it is known that it has created an onerous process that has "skyrocketed" upwardly fees and costs of legal proceedings. Experience dictates that the selection of the jury is more arduous and costly; the judgments are long, tedious, and loaded with technicalities; the sentence of death and the stay in prison is charged with one greater number of demands and counterclaims on the part of activist groups; and in addition, imposes an emotional charge very strong family and friends both defendants and

victims. The words of federal judge Alex Kozinski masterfully condense the economic effectiveness of the death penalty, "it is the worst of all worlds".

Now lets move on the last point: preventive method the death penalty?

is

effective

as

1 - It is proven that the application of the death penalty as punishment has not done that crime rates go down. In general, those who commit this type of crime (the condemned to death) are madmen who would excite the challenges. And what greater challenge that the death penalty as a punishment to the 'failure' of their criminal "games"? 2 - Those that judges are human, therefore, can make mistakes. It is better to refrain from punishing a guilty to kill the innocent. 3. In countries where corruption is the order of the day, would be a perfect excuse for power remove top to those who bother you. 4. The death of the murderer does not the families of the victims to recover their lost loved.

I'd now like to sum up the main points which were:

The death penalty acts as a deterrent factor is based on remove the live of the criminal is killed another person and also that is a way to intimidate other criminals so that they don't kill other people besides is a rational act to put an end to the crime. Generally the use of the death penalty does not end with the crime, but if you can decrease it a little and that people today in day still attached to the motto "eye for an eye tooth for tooth" also could happen that an innocent person can die in the absence of little evidence.

The death penalty requires many expenditures of money, time, and even becomes a very uncomfortable situation for the families of the accused, and also for the judged, so it is considered The death penalty is not as effective; not low indices of crime; deranged people see her as a payment have been discovered; people who judge can make mistakes; and finally the families never recover to their loved ones.

In conclusion, let me leave you with this thought: There is no clear evidence that the application of the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. Neither seems to be cost effective. In addition always fits the possibility that an innocent person is executed, as happened in March 1988 with Wille Darden in Florida and in 1992 with Roger Coleman in Virginia. In a democratic and supposedly Christian society, the death penalty seems to follow the old motto of "eye for eye and tooth for tooth". Is this the most correct position and successful in a civilized society? The death penalty only serves as revenge and encourages hatred and violence. It does not serve as exemplary punishment; rather it achieves the opposite effect on psychotic killers.