To die or not to die? That is the question
Please note that these are opinions that I and my friends have. You are free to express your own views. That doesn't make you a bad person at all.
Adina’s Argument:
When looking for information on whether or not the death penalty, I came across this statement; “…violent crimes and murder are part of the cruelest, most inhumane and disparaging crimes that exist and they violate the victim’s right to live…”, Which then got me thinking, if these people decide that they have a right to kill innocent people who’s to say they won’t take another life? Shouldn’t we stop this person before allowing them that chance? And if we did that why shouldn’t we inflict upon them that crime which they inflicted upon innocent people and thought was fun to do? Shouldn’t we let them “have a taste of their own medicine?”
Of course there are many people who disagree with that logic. Here is what I’m saying basically: Imagine that you are the family of a victim. Wouldn’t it haunt you your whole life that this person got away with it and is just in jail? Wouldn’t you want some justice to have been done to that murder? Or would you rather that the person who committed this horrific crime be in a cell for the rest of his life?
Imagine this, a young girl around the age of eight riding bikes with her step-brother when a stranger pulled up next to them. This little girl was a member of the church and had learned early on to love and help everyone, and she couldn’t understand why people lied. The man told her that he knew her father, convincing her to get in the car. That was the last name she was seen alive. When he was brought to testify and found guilty, he said that her last words were, “Jesus loves you.” How could he still murder her anyway you may ask? That’s one of the strange mysteries that goes on in a murder’s mind and many hope never to find out. However this story is completely and sadly true. The little girl’s name was Cary Ann Medlin and she was actually murdered at the age of eight. Her murder, Robert Glen Coe. Even after hearing those words, he still murdered her. Tell me, what kind of sick person does that?
Rachael's Argument:
The definition of justice is: the administering of deserved punishment or reward. Justice is highly regarded in our community and in the political world, is it not? But in this system of government which looks so highly upon this word which concerns crimes and punishments, justice has, both as a word and action, been pushed into the shadows. Which is why our country needs this, to even out the scale if you will between the murder and the victim of said crime.
Suppose that you yourself were a victim of this type of crime. If it were possible for you to allow your murderer to get their fair punishment wouldn't you want that? Of course, there are people who say that two wrongs don't make a right. As true as that is- what if your murderer murdered you brutally? Would you still feel the same way then? Would you want your family to have to suffer for what they did to you? And what if a beloved one of yours was murdered? Wouldn't you want some type of revenge for them? Or would you rather they get away with that and spend the rest of their life in a cozy prison cell? Not to mention they might be found innocent and let out alive. Most people would consider it twice after thinking about said things.
If one gets death, the other life, even if that life is of limited freedom, how can this be a fair exchange for something the victim couldn't help? Some suggest that a lifetime of prison term is a better alternative. But this doesn't count as justice, not at all really. In some countries, take Sweden for example, despite taking away the accused and guilty of their liberty there will be time for leave, good and nice times, and care and rehabilitation. Also a lifetime in Sweden is in all truth ten to eighteen years. There is also the hope of release, a hope that is almost always fulfilled. But how many of these comforts does a deceased person have? None!
Bree's argument:
Even if a person was to get a lifetime without parole or mercy, the convict would soon become accustomed to life in prison. Soon, that new life would become decent once the convict gets used to it. And this prison term cannot become unbearable because then the prison is like a torturing pain which is an inhumane act. So this prison term must be tolerable and humane to say the very least, leaving the justice to fall flat on the ground. While the deceased will not ever again be able to participate in the good life, even a fraction of what this convict faces for the rest of their life.
A lost human life can only be fully repaid by the murderer going through what they put their victim through. Today though, the violent criminal and murderer receive much pity from the state. The murderer is taken care of while the pain that he has afflicted on the deceased family and friends must suffer because of his cruelty. Not to mention the judicial system does not give this person a fair “payment” to what the murderer afflicted to it's victim. This should not and can not be accepted because if we do, then we are just as bad as the murderer, no worse. We let a convict live while we let an innocent person die for no reason.
Tell me is that fair by anyone's standards?
