Death Penalty In California
California residents have many opinions on the termination of the death penalty in the state. California has the largest death row in the nation-nearly 740 inmates making it the largest country putting inmates to death, California Gov. Jerry Brown reduced the prison sentences of 131 people in California and pardoned another 143, giving them a far better chance to reintegrate into society (Sheri Silberstien).
Many citizens say who are we to decide when it's time for someone's death to come, and what form of punishment is best suited for the inmates, while others believe it's a way for the victims family to feel justice has been served additionally it was also for inmates to be made an example of their heinous crimes. It also puts other inmates awaiting their release date at the risk of potently being killed by more dangerous inmates.
The death penalty is a way of punishment that involves executing a person after he or she has been found guilty of a crime by their legal system. This can be done as an act of retribution, to ensure that the person cannot commit future crimes, and as a deterrent for potential criminals. Most countries have used this form of punishment at some point in modern times for different crimes, putting people to death in different ways that have evolved with society. The death penalty has been a form of punishment for decades just used in different ways such as hanging, electrocution, the gas chamber, firing squad, and lethal injection. Inmates had an option on how they wanted to be put to death. the most common choice for inmates was the electric chair, although it sounds painful it was the quickest death. Even though many think the death penalty is wrong there are many positive outcomes to it and can assure it is quick, painless, and humane.
Some criminals simply cannot be allowed to keep living because every moment they're alive is another minute that they're a threat to the community. These criminals must be killed because keeping them alive puts their fellow prisoners, their guards, and the wider community at risk. Some criminals are simply so mentaly far gone that they're beyond help and will always be a major risk to society. For these criminals who essentially have no hope for redemption anymore, the only remaining option is to remove them from existence. Violent criminals pose risks that are just too great for them to be allowed to live. Many run the risk of being at risk by these criminals, including fellow prisoners they are the people who are most at risk. One of the reasons prisons are so dangerous is because they are full of murderers and rapists it would be unjust to the other inmates to expose them to such violent offenders. Guards are at risk, as well. Prison officers are often assaulted and even killed by offenders who should have received the death penalty (PauI Goodman) .
The wider community is also at risk from violent offenders who either escape prison or are paroled early due to an ineffective parole system. The safest solution, therefore, is to kill violent offenders before they can be a threat once again. It deters criminals from committing serious crimes, Common sense tells us that the most frightening thing for a human being is to lose their life, therefore the death penalty is the best deterrent when it comes to discouraging people from carrying out the worst crimes. It is quick, painless, and humane (PauI Goodman). The methods of execution have gradually become more humane over the years, so the argument that the death penalty is cruel and unusual is not valid. The legal system constantly evolves to maximize justice. Just because it is possible that a wrong decision could be made by the legal system doesn’t mean that the death penalty is wrong.
Every effort is made in the U.S to give death row prisoners opportunities to challenge the court's decisions. Modern methods of crime detection, such as DNA testing, also give greater certainty of guilt than existed in the past, It appeases the victims or victims' families (PauI Goodman)plus we live in such an advanced era technology is so far advanced now especially when it comes to forensics. The death penalty can provide families of victims with some closure, which may help them to deal with their suffering. Without the death penalty, some criminals would continue to commit crimes. It deters prisoners who are already serving life sentences in jail from committing more serious offenses. It is a cost-effective solution. The idea put forward by abolitionists that it costs more to execute someone than imprison them for life is simply not true and there is plenty of evidence to show this. Retribution is not the same as revenge. Retribution is a necessary part of the punishment process without it, the friends and family of the victims as well as the public in general would not feel that justice had been served.
The death penalty is necessary because many victims' families will never be able to feel safe or live a normal life again if they know that the person who killed their family members is still alive. Even if the criminal is placed in the most secure facility possible, fear still grips the families of the victims. While this fear may be irrational, that doesn't make it any less real. We must consider the rights of these families to live normal lives when sentencing murderers; we should prioritize their rights over those of the violent criminal.
We also should not let a violent offender continue to harm others from the inside, even if they're not intentionally doing so. This applies especially to criminals who have made threats against other people in society and family members of other victims. This is what the death penalty was intended for, not criminals but people who are just beyong the word help. people who have evil in their mind and have no mercy, these are the people are legal system puts to rest. Many of our citizens do have concerns pretaining the death penalty and there are some pretty strong points on cons of this sitiuation especially when it comes to our tax payers.
The death penalty is quite expensive and life imprisonment can be cheaper. Over the lifetime of a case, executing prisoners can be three times as expensive as life in prison, primarily due to the higher costs of capital punishment trials, automatic appeals, and the heightened security on death row with lower staff-to-prisoner ratios. Commuting all death sentences to life in prison would save hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the U.S. and many billions over the coming decades ( Dan Brook).
So far in counting there are 31 states that have the death penalty still, There have been more than 1,400 since 1977. In the US, between 1967 and 1977, there were no executions. In 1972, as a result of Furman v. Georgia, the US Supreme Court reduced all pending death sentences to life imprisonment. Later, in 1976, the court affirmed the legality of capital punishment in Gregg v. Georgia. fact source ( Dan Brook). Even though Gov. Newsom has terminated the death penalty while hes in office, he isnt letting death row inmates out freely they will no be able to be relased just because there is no death penalty nor has their sentence been lowered. But what do the citizens, the voters acatually think about this after already voting on keeping the death penalty?.
In an article recently published by NPR stated ‘Public opinion in California on capital punishment has shifted dramatically in the past few decades, with increasing numbers of people preferring the option of life without the possibility of parole to the death penalty in most cases. However, in 2012 and again in 2016, California voters rejected ballot measures aimed at abolishing the death penalty. In 2016, as they narrowly rejected Proposition 62, voters narrowly passed a competing measure, Proposition 66, to expedite executions by shortening the appeals process. The California Supreme Court rejected part of that measure while keeping most of it intact’. Personally i felt like our vote didn't matter we were brushed off and our opinions were not heard.
There are so many opinions on this issue, some agree, some disagree, and others are just indecisive. My personal opinion on the death penalty is if the person did a heinous act and he/she can not be helped there shouldn't be a reason we keep them any longer in a prison cell. Reason so if they did not think of the crime itself and feel ripeness they just aren't able to be rehabilitated..
Crimes, including violent crimes, has been with society virtually since the beginning, and it will remain with society until it ends. Nothing will stop some people from committing violent acts, and the death penalty does not appear to be the answer. even though we have had this punishment for quite some time it doesn't seem to really stop these criminals but can still be a form of punishment when there is no help for them. Sometimes, innocent lives are lost to this process and many times the families of the victims do not experience the kind of closure that one would hope for simply because the offender has been executed. Since it would appear that even some law enforcement officers do not see the death penalty as an answer to the problems of crime in society, some wonder why allow to continue.
It is possible that the death penalty would be a deterrent if it were used more quuickly and more often. Many people who are sentenced to death spend years in prison appealing their conviction and appealing their sentence, and this is a large waste of taxpayer money, also a huge burden on the court system. Those that are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt often wait a long time for their sentence to be carried out. Even when DNA evidence shows that they were the guilty party, the execution is still not swiftly carried out, and this allows many criminals to find some way to avoid it.
Instead, they end up spending their life in prison, where they get hot meals every day, are allowed to exercise, and have a bed to sleep in every night. They watch TV and read books, and this is more than many of the hungry and homeless in today’s world get. Criminals are treated better than many of these hard working people. The criminals have lost their freedom, but they get a lot of things in return for that, and the society is required to pay for them through taxes and other organizations that fund the prisons.
The death penalty actually would work if everyone found guilty of a violent crime and proved guilty with DNA evidence and/or a confession was executed within 30 days. There would be less prison overcrowding, and appeals would not be allowed. Enacted in this way, the death penalty might be a better deterrent against violent crime, because the stakes would be much higher than they are now, and the chances of being executed would be much greater. It would give criminals more to think about when they were contemplating their violent crimes, and society (at least that part of society that supports the death penalty) would feel better about not supporting these criminals while they appealed and worked to save themselves.
It is also possible that more people would come to see the death penalty as a good idea if they could be shown that there was less prison overcrowding and that the amount of violent crime was actually dropping because of it. This might help society out in several ways, but it is unlikely that this will come to pass. There are always those that will fight for the rights of convicted prisoners, and argue that they are misunderstood.
There are also those that will maintain the opinion that killing is wrong, no matter who does it. Every individual is certainly entitled to their opinion, and it would appear that those who feel the death penalty is wrong are winning their battle, at least in some states, because executions do not take place very often. Even when they do occur, it is usually after a lengthy appeals process lasting many years and costing much money.
Since society will never be free of crime, dealing with that crime and controlling it has become the focus of law enforcement. If the death penalty can be improved and made to work, it should remain. If it cannot be changed so that it actually deters violent crimes, than perhaps it should be done away with in favor of a system that will actually lower the crime rate and work to prevent violent crimes in the future.
