Weighing the Possibilities to an Uncompromised Ruling

When we think about murderers and the lives that they have taken, we usually feel like the government should induce a rule such as “an eye for an eye”. We mourn for our loved ones and crave for vengeance or justice for our fallen family members, as if by doing this it will bring them back. And when we hear that the one who intentionally killed our family is getting the death penalty, then we immediately jump to the conclusions that they are getting what they deserved. We don’t even acknowledge that we are doing the exact same thing to them, as they have done to us. Like all differing beliefs and difficult concepts, we know that to any good debate there are always two points of view. Both sides believe that they are right, but like everything that aren’t facts these sides are based on opinions. Different people have different stories, and it’s up to us to recognize and appreciate everyone’s ideals.

Most commonly people see the negative effects of death penalty to the United States, simply because we are taking a life. But, there are a lot of studies and beliefs that also prove that this method is affective, and takes full charge to the prison count issue. Constitutional Lawyer and General Counsel to the Center for Law and Accountability, Brian Fein, JD; showed that these inmates do indeed have a choice if they get the death penalty or not. Brian announced that “The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense." ("Bruce Fein, JD - Death Penalty - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 June 2016. )This shows that in some sense the death penalty can be avoided, if the injustice had in fact not been committed by those held responsible. This is a path that can be chosen if the person had chosen to do something a little differently. More researchers and lawyers have chosen the same side as Fein, but decided to focus on different aspects on the situation. Another stance on why the death penalty is preferred came from the late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, Ernest Van Den Haag, PhD. He stated that the death penalty is an ideal punishment for these types of first degree criminals, simply because those types of people fear death. That they don’t fear a prison sentence and that death is a more of a punishment to these people. In addition to this, by eliminating the killers and terrorists that threaten to take innocent lives, we are helping to lower the risks of more lives taken in the future by their hands. To continue with the words of Ernest supporting this cause, he once stated these words, "I can not accept the abolitionist belief that there is no crime horrible enough to deserve capital punishment. On the contrary, there are far more crimes that do than there are death sentences. All the more reason not to spare the few who do receive it.” ("Ernest Van Den Haag, PhD - Death Penalty - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 June 2016.) Saying once again that these horrific crimes deserve to be brought to justice.

Not to only acknowledge the pros of the issue, but we also need to bring light to the cons as well to state an unbiased opinion. Related to this topic, Professor of Law at New York University School ofLaw, Bryan Stevenson, JD, shares his ideas about how unfair the penalty is. That the penalty is an unjust way to solve criminal actions, and to stop these behaviors – in my own words, “Death cannot be solved with death.” Stevenson declared that the law treats people better if they are rich and guilty, opposed to the innocent and poor. This penalty, and many other laws, get twisted and stretched in the favor of the much wealthier clients, proving what Stevenson was attempting to portray. As well as this claim, many other people have seen similar injustices happening within this federal law. Justice of the US Supreme Court, William J. Brennan, JD, also stated a similar prospect. He said that this ruling is unjust and that it treats humans as an object or something that the laws can just toy with, rather than seeing them as actual people with rights. This ruling also breaks the eighth and fourteenth amendments. The eight amendment states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” ("Eighth Amendment." TheFreeDictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 June 2016.) As well as this amendment, the fourteenth amendment also states that, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” ("14th Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 June 2016. ) This helps the beliefs that Brennan was trying to portray, as well showing how these amendments were indeed broken. Both of these people make fine arguments in why the legal ruling of the death penalty is wrong. They tell their opinions and aren’t afraid to show the world what they think. Even though these people may have done wrong, it doesn’t mean that we too should do wrong in the process of finding justice. We should be the people that our future civilians look up to, and strive to be like.

Looking at all of these opinions gives us a pretty good idea of different beliefs in different parts of the country. It shows us that not just one opinion rules the outcome, and the final say of what our country and our governing body decide. Looking at all of these different ideas about only one concept, it only proves how complex and divided our country really is. If we want our home to be a certain way then we have to be the ones to shape it ourselves. We have to stand up for our beliefs and show them what our opinion could do. If you truly think about this concept and how so many people have so many different beliefs, then you’ll see that there is no correct answer to this or any world issue. This and many other issues like it are opinions that are based on the person and their beliefs. There is no right answer, both sides are correct in their own means. We just have to look at the odds and weigh the means for a brighter tomorrow. Examining the pros and cons helps us paint a bigger picture in our minds than what only one person can really see.

Bibliography

"Eighth Amendment." TheFreeDictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 June 2016.

"Top 10 Pros and Cons - Death Penalty - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 June 2016.

"Ernest Van Den Haag, PhD - Death Penalty - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 June 2016

"Bruce Fein, JD - Death Penalty - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 June 2016.

"14th Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 June 2016.