Should the death penalty be mandatory for people that kill other people?
The saying goes do unto others what you would have them do unto you. Therefore, the price for taking away life should cost the offender his or her life. Different kinds of punishment have been used to discourage criminals from unlawful actions, and the greater the criminal act the greater should be the punishment. The death penalty is a controversial issue and people base their arguments for or against death penalty on practical, emotional, religious or practical grounds. People in favor of the capital punishment argue that it improves peace in the society by ensuring that such people do not offend again, it is a just retribution and less expensive.
Argument Proposal
The proposal is that the death penalty or capital punishment fits the crime of murder justly. If justice exists in any society, then the penalty for murder should be equal to the crime. In order to prevent chaos in the society and ensure stability by restoring balance in the society, the penalty for murder should be death. Failure to restore the necessary balance in society results to violence because it shows that the crime is tolerable. Even a lesser punishment would mean that the crime is tolerable and it would undermine the society’s value of life. In terms of justice, the capital punishment serves the society right by helping in eliminating the worst element; the criminal. Forgetting all the arguments for or against the death penalty it is important to remember the victim of the murder. People argue for or against the death penalty based on the rights of the criminal, the legal obligations to rid the community of a violent lawbreaker, and the need to punish the criminal completely. However, people forget the victim and the families and friends left behind by the victim. The constant thing in these murder offences is that someone is harmed. Not only do the family and friends of the victim have to live with the pain of losing a loved one, but also they recognize that the perpetrator of the crime lives while their loved one does not. It is so disturbing for the family and friends of the victim to know that their loved one has died while the murderer still lives. The victims of murder cannot take vengeance for themselves but the law and their families can. If for instance, a father lost his son to murder just because the murderer wanted money or to know how it feels like to take life, the father would want some level of retribution. It is impossible for the father in this case to bring back the life of his son but the law can provide consolation through the death penalty hence bringing peace of mind to this father. It is unfair for a criminal to keep roaming in the society while the victim continues to rot in the grave. The criminal poses a threat to society and the only best way to eliminate such a threat in the society is to kill the person. The community feels that justice is achieved if the criminal faces the same sentence as the victim. Based on a moral perspective, the death penalty is right and most religious doctrines support that form of punishment. The religious views support an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This means that one should receive similar treatment to the one they treat others. Therefore, if one commits murder, the similar punishment for such a crime is murder. Such form of punishment brings peace to the society because it provides justice to the family of the victims of the crime.
Argument Proposal
One major reason for making the death penalty mandatory to people that kill other people is that it deters similar situations where people kill others. The death penalty denies the murderer from committing a similar crime. Once the murderer dies, it is not possible to repeat the crime. Just as a robber is put to prison so that he or she does not rob again, the violent murderers must die to prohibit them from murdering again whether in prison or in the community should they get a chance to leave prison. Society uses punishment to discourage potential criminals from unlawful behavior. Therefore, since society has the highest interest to prevent murder it uses the greatest punishment available to deter murder, which is the death penalty. Hence, future murderers who see murderers executed would think against carrying out the crime. A study carried out by criminologists to determine if murder rates fluctuated with convicted murderers being executed showed that the trend was conclusive. For every convict executed, seven lives other lives were spared because the punishment deterred potential criminals from committing murder. Even though the death sentence takes long before execution takes place, it is still the best way to deter other people from murder. The countries with high murder rates would have higher rates of murder if they did not use the death penalty.
Therefore, the death penalty helps discourage future murderers both as a deterrent and as a way of permanent incapacitation. The death penalty is a just retribution because the murderers should face the same sentence as their victims did. When people take away a life, they disturb the balance of justice and the society succumbs to violence if the law is not effective in restoring justice. The only just punishment that society can use to show the intolerable nature of murder and restore balance in society is to take away the life of the murderer. The victim and his or her family may not be restored to their previous status before the murder but an execution ends the murderer’s crime, ends the ordeal for the victim’s family, and prevents the murderer from creating more victims. On the same case, It would also be fair if cold blooded murderers were directly sentenced without an appeal because in being alive they serve as an example that murder pays. For instance, if a murderer kills a baby as the mother watches and then proceeds to kill the mother should never be given an appeal chance.
Justice would not be attained if the murderer continues to lie in prison with family visits, unending appeals, adequate food, and a comfortable environment. Therefore, the only just punishment for such a cruel crime is death. The death penalty reduces the cost associated with keeping the criminal in prison. Compared to criminal sentences for life in prison, the death row criminals have fewer financial costs attached to them. Their fate is often sealed and hence the room for costly appeals and other court procedures is eliminated. If the murderer remains in prison, he poses a threat to other inmates and the society in general because such persons find ways of escape. Once back to society, the criminals threaten killing other people. These criminals add to the expenses associated with finding them when they escape back to society. Therefore, the most effective way of eliminating such costs is to sentence the murderer to death, as it is the best punishment for the crime.
Counter-argument
It is known that the worst thing with the death penalty is that it is an irrevocable form of punishment. Therefore, once a criminal is executed, nothing can amend the situation in case of a mistake. The danger of executing innocent people prohibits the use of the death penalty as a form of punishment. In the business world, if an automobile industry operated with such failure rates, it would be removed from business. In the same manner therefore, the death penalty poses a greater risk of executing innocent people. The death penalty is unfair because it discriminates on the offenders. Practically, capital punishment does not single out the worst criminals. In addition, most of the criminals facing the death sentence are poor and rely on attorneys assigned by the state because they cannot afford their own lawyers. These attorneys are poorly paid and hence they hardly represent their clients well who eventually end up convicted to death. In addition, the death penalty represents a violation of human rights and hence it should not be used to convict criminals of murder. “It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice.” This form of punishment violates the basic right to life and nobody has the right to take away another person’s life in form of fulfilling justice. No one deserves such a degrading and inhuman punishment because it would amount to judging the convict wrongly. The death penalty is an ultimate deterrent to murder because it does not reduce the rate of the criminal act. However, it is not possible to use the capital punishment in such a manner such that when a criminal is convicted of murder, the next thing for him or her is prompt execution. A potential criminal will still murder because the death penalty just acts as a threat and it does not address the causes of the crime.
Conclusion
I think the death penalty should be mandatory for people that kill other people. Justice exists if the criminal faces similar sentence as the victim of his or her actions.
2nd Draft Introduction
The saying goes do unto others what you would have them do unto you. Therefore, the price for taking away life should cost the offender his or her life. Different kinds of punishment have been used to discourage criminals from unlawful actions, and the greater the criminal act the greater should be the punishment. It is in the interest of the society to prevent murder and thus the death penalty would be the strongest punishment to discourage murder (Haugen and Musser 122). The death penalty is a controversial issue and people base their arguments for or against death penalty on practical, emotional, religious or practical grounds. People in favor of the capital punishment argue that it improves peace in the society by ensuring that such people do not offend again, it is a just retribution and less expensive. On the contrary, people against the death penalty argue that it violates human rights and that nobody has the authority to decide if someone should die. Therefore, the death penalty should be mandatory for people that kill others because if someone takes another’s life, his or her life should be taken too.
Argument Proposal
The proposal is that the death penalty or capital punishment fits the crime of murder justly. If justice exists in any society, then the penalty for murder should be equal to the crime. In order to prevent chaos in the society and ensure stability by restoring balance in the society, the penalty for murder should be death. Failure to restore the necessary balance in society results to violence because it shows that the crime is tolerable. Even a lesser punishment would mean that the crime is tolerable and it would undermine the society’s value of life. Therefore, justice is achieved if death penalty is the ultimate punishment for murder because it serves as the best punishment for such a crime (Gale 2).
In terms of justice, the capital punishment serves the society right by helping in eliminating the worst element; the criminal. Forgetting all the arguments for or against the death penalty it is important to remember the victim of the murder. People argue for or against the death penalty based on the rights of the criminal, the legal obligations to rid the community of a violent lawbreaker, and the need to punish the criminal completely. However, people forget the victim and the families and friends left behind by the victim. The constant thing in these murder offences is that someone is harmed. Not only do the family and friends of the victim have to live with the pain of losing a loved one, but also they recognize that the perpetrator of the crime lives while their loved one does not. It is so disturbing for the family and friends of the victim to know that their loved one has died while the murderer still lives. The victims of murder cannot take vengeance for themselves but the law and their families can. The victim’s family feels that they should achieve retribution for their loved one (Jost 980). If for instance, a father lost his son to murder just because the murderer wanted money or to know how it feels like to take life, the father would want some level of retribution. It is impossible for the father in this case to bring back the life of his son but the law can provide consolation through the death penalty hence bringing peace of mind to this father. It is unfair for a criminal to keep roaming in the society while the victim continues to rot in the grave. The criminal poses a threat to society and the only best way to eliminate such a threat in the society is to kill the person.
The community feels that justice is achieved if the criminal faces the same sentence as the victim. Based on a moral perspective, the death penalty is right and most religious doctrines support that form of punishment. The religious views support an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This means that one should receive similar treatment to the one they treat others. Therefore, if one commits murder, the similar punishment for such a crime is murder. Such form of punishment brings peace to the society because it provides justice to the family of the victims of the crime.
Supporting Argument
In supporting the argument, one major reason for making the death penalty mandatory to people that kill other people is that it deters similar situations where people kill others. The death penalty denies the murderer from committing a similar crime. Once the murderer dies, it is not possible to repeat the crime. Just as a robber is put to prison so that he or she does not rob again, the violent murderers must die to prohibit them from murdering again whether in prison or in the community should they get a chance to leave prison. The death penalty discourages future murderers from trying to commit the same crime because they may not want to go through the same form of punishment (Band 3). Society uses punishment to discourage potential criminals from unlawful behavior. Therefore, since society has the highest interest to prevent murder it uses the greatest punishment available to deter murder, which is the death penalty. Hence, future murderers who see murderers executed would think against carrying out the crime. A study carried out by criminologists to determine if murder rates fluctuated with convicted murderers being executed showed that the trend was conclusive. For every convict executed, seven lives other lives were spared because the punishment deterred potential criminals from committing murder. Even though the death sentence takes long before execution takes place, it is still the best way to deter other people from murder. The fact that some countries that do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than those that use the death penalty does not mean that the death punishment fails to deter crime (Raph 27). The countries with high murder rates would have higher rates of murder if they did not use the death penalty. Therefore, the death penalty helps discourage future murderers both as a deterrent and as a way of permanent incapacitation. The death penalty is a just retribution because the murderers should face the same sentence as their victims did. When people take away a life, they disturb the balance of justice and the society succumbs to violence if the law is not effective in restoring justice. The only just punishment that society can use to show the intolerable nature of murder and restore balance in society is to take away the life of the murderer. Retribution originates from religious doctrines, which maintain that it is appropriate to take an “eye for an eye” and hence proper to take life for life (Jost 966). The victim and his or her family may not be restored to their previous status before the murder but an execution ends the murderer’s crime, ends the ordeal for the victim’s family, and prevents the murderer from creating more victims. On the same case, It would also be fair if cold blooded murderers were directly sentenced without an appeal because in being alive they serve as an example that murder pays. For instance, if a murderer kills a baby as the mother watches and then proceeds to kill the mother should never be given an appeal chance. Justice would not be attained if the murderer continues to lie in prison with family visits, unending appeals, adequate food, and a comfortable environment. Therefore, the only just punishment for such a cruel crime is death. The death penalty reduces the cost associated with keeping the criminal in prison.
Compared to criminal sentences for life in prison, the death row criminals have fewer financial costs attached to them. Their fate is often sealed and hence the room for costly appeals and other court procedures is eliminated. The cost of keeping the prisoner in the cell alive is less for a death row criminal because the execution eliminates him or her (Raph 24). If the murderer remains in prison, he poses a threat to other inmates and the society in general because such persons find ways of escape. Once back to society, the criminals threaten killing other people. These criminals add to the expenses associated with finding them when they escape back to society. Therefore, the most effective way of eliminating such costs is to sentence the murderer to death, as it is the best punishment for the crime.
Countering Argument
In countering the argument, it is known that the worst thing with the death penalty is that it is an irrevocable form of punishment. Therefore, once a criminal is executed, nothing can amend the situation in case of a mistake. The danger of executing innocent people prohibits the use of the death penalty as a form of punishment. Statistics indicate that courts have made several mistakes in executing innocent people to death. From 1973, statistics show that courts in the States have released about 88 people sentenced to death after proving their innocence (Band 3). In the course of that period, the courts executed about 650 people meaning that for every seven people executed, one was innocent and should not have faced the execution (Band 4). Because of such statistics, the risk of convicting innocent people is high and intolerable. In the business world, if an automobile industry operated with such failure rates, it would be removed from business. In the same manner therefore, the death penalty poses a greater risk of executing innocent people. The death penalty is unfair because it discriminates on the offenders. Practically, capital punishment does not single out the worst criminals. On the contrary, this penalty selects the criminals arbitrarily based on irrational factors such as the race of the victim, quality of the defense or the country where the criminal committed the crime (Haugen and Musser 24). In addition, most of the criminals facing the death sentence are poor and rely on attorneys assigned by the state because they cannot afford their own lawyers. These attorneys are poorly paid and hence they hardly represent their clients well who eventually end up convicted to death. In addition, the death penalty represents a violation of human rights and hence it should not be used to convict criminals of murder. “It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice.” This form of punishment violates the basic right to life and nobody has the right to take away another person’s life in form of fulfilling justice. No one deserves such a degrading and inhuman punishment because it would amount to judging the convict wrongly. The death penalty is an ultimate deterrent to murder because it does not reduce the rate of the criminal act. For a punishment to be deterrent, it must be certain, frequent, and consistent (Gale 2). However, it is not possible to use the capital punishment in such a manner such that when a criminal is convicted of murder, the next thing for him or her is prompt execution. A potential criminal will still murder because the death penalty just acts as a threat and it does not address the causes of the crime. Furthermore, Ralph posited that life imprisonment is a severe punishment compared to the death sentence that can deter any rational human being from making a violent crime rather than using the death penalty (25). This is shown when crimes that crimes that served a mandatory life sentence were less committed compared to those carrying a mandatory death sentence.
Conclusion
I think the death penalty should be mandatory for people that kill other people. Justice exists if the criminal faces similar sentence as the victim of his or her actions. Some of the ways that murderers kill their victims are so cruel and the only best method to restore balance and for the society to see justice done would be to convict the criminal to death. The capital punishment deters future potential murderers from killing because they would not like to follow a similar path for their crimes. Religious doctrines, which most countries identify with, also support the death penalty as a just retribution for the murder crime. This form of punishment also reduces the cost of keeping the criminal in prison. Therefore, the death penalty should be mandatory for people that commit murder.
3rd Draft (Final Copy)
The saying goes do unto others what you would have them do unto you. Therefore, the price for taking away life should cost the offender his or her life. Different kinds of punishment have been used to discourage criminals from unlawful actions, and the greater the criminal act the greater should be the punishment. It is in the interest of the society to prevent murder and thus the death penalty would be the strongest punishment to discourage murder (Haugen and Musser 122). The death penalty is a controversial issue and people base their arguments for or against death penalty on practical, emotional, religious or practical grounds. People in favor of the capital punishment argue that it improves peace in the society by ensuring that such people do not offend again, it is a just retribution and less expensive. On the contrary, people against the death penalty argue that it violates human rights and that nobody has the authority to decide if someone should die. Therefore, the death penalty should be mandatory for people that kill others because if someone takes another’s life, his or her life should be taken too. The victim of the murder did not have the choice to live or die and thus, the criminal should not choose if he or she lives or dies.
The proposal is that the death penalty or capital punishment fits the crime of murder justly. If justice exists in any society, then the penalty for murder should be equal to the crime. In order to prevent chaos in the society and ensure stability by restoring balance in the society, the penalty for murder should be death. Failure to restore the necessary balance in society results to violence because it shows that the crime is tolerable. Even a lesser punishment would mean that the crime is tolerable and it would undermine the society’s value of life. Therefore, justice is achieved if death penalty is the ultimate punishment for murder because it serves as the best punishment for such a crime (Gale 2). In terms of justice, the capital punishment serves the society right by helping in eliminating the worst element; the criminal.
Forgetting all the arguments for or against the death penalty it is important to remember the victim of the murder. People argue for or against the death penalty based on the rights of the criminal, the legal obligations to rid the community of a violent lawbreaker, and the need to punish the criminal completely. However, people forget the victim and the families and friends left behind by the victim. The constant thing in these murder offences is that someone is harmed. Not only do the family and friends of the victim have to live with the pain of losing a loved one, but also they recognize that the perpetrator of the crime lives while their loved one does not. It is so disturbing for the family and friends of the victim to know that their loved one has died while the murderer still lives. The victims of murder cannot take vengeance for themselves but the law and their families can. The victim’s family feels that they should achieve retribution for their loved one (Jost 980). If for instance, a father lost his son to murder just because the murderer wanted money or to know how it feels like to take life, the father would want some level of retribution. It is impossible for the father in this case to bring back the life of his son but the law can provide consolation through the death penalty hence bringing peace of mind to this father.
It is unfair for a criminal to keep roaming in the society while the victim continues to rot in the grave. The criminal poses a threat to society and the only best way to eliminate such a threat in the society is to kill the person. The community feels that justice is achieved if the criminal faces the same sentence as the victim. Based on a moral perspective, the death penalty is right and most religious doctrines support that form of punishment. The religious views support an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This means that one should receive similar treatment to the one they treat others. Therefore, if one commits murder, the similar punishment for such a crime is murder. Such form of punishment brings peace to the society because it provides justice to the family of the victims of the crime.
In supporting the argument, one major reason for making the death penalty mandatory to people that kill other people is that it deters similar situations where people kill others. The death penalty denies the murderer from committing a similar crime. Once the murderer dies, it is not possible to repeat the crime. Just as a robber is put to prison so that he or she does not rob again, the violent murderers must die to prohibit them from murdering again whether in prison or in the community should they get a chance to leave prison. The death penalty discourages future murderers from trying to commit the same crime because they may not want to go through the same form of punishment (Band 3). Society uses punishment to discourage potential criminals from unlawful behavior. Therefore, since society has the highest interest to prevent murder it uses the greatest punishment available to deter murder, which is the death penalty. Hence, future murderers who see murderers executed would think against carrying out the crime. A study carried out by criminologists to determine if murder rates fluctuated with convicted murderers being executed showed that the trend was conclusive. For every convict executed, seven lives other lives were spared because the punishment deterred potential criminals from committing murder. Even though the death sentence takes long before execution takes place, it is still the best way to deter other people from murder. The fact that some countries that do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than those that use the death penalty does not mean that the death punishment fails to deter crime (Raph 27). The countries with high murder rates would have higher rates of murder if they did not use the death penalty. Therefore, the death penalty helps discourage future murderers both as a deterrent and as a way of permanent incapacitation.
The death penalty is a just retribution because the murderers should face the same sentence as their victims did. When people take away a life, they disturb the balance of justice and the society succumbs to violence if the law is not effective in restoring justice. The only just punishment that society can use to show the intolerable nature of murder and restore balance in society is to take away the life of the murderer. Retribution originates from religious doctrines, which maintain that it is appropriate to take an “eye for an eye” and hence proper to take life for life (Jost 966). The victim and his or her family may not be restored to their previous status before the murder but an execution ends the murderer’s crime, ends the ordeal for the victim’s family, and prevents the murderer from creating more victims. On the same case, it would also be fair if any type of crime that would be considered for the death penalty would at the very least merit a life term without the possibility of parole. Yes at times we can argue that it is not perfect yet it is the only one we have and we must let it work. For instance, if a murderer kills a baby as the mother watches and then proceeds to kill the mother, he should never be given an appeal chance. Justice would not be attained if the murderer continues to lie in prison with family visits, unending appeals, adequate food, and a comfortable environment. Furthermore, statistics have proven that over the last decade prison escapes have been on the rise with the advent of advanced technology. The Florida department of corrections reported a 54% increase in prison escapes (Florida Department of Corrections). This trend shows that murderers might be one of the escapees who return to the society. Therefore, the only just punishment for such a cruel crime is death.
The death penalty reduces the cost associated with keeping the criminal in prison. Compared to criminal sentences for life in prison, the death row criminals have fewer financial costs attached to them. Their fate is often sealed and hence the room for costly appeals and other court procedures is eliminated. The cost of keeping the prisoner in the cell alive is less for a death row criminal because the execution eliminates him or her (Raph 24). If the murderer remains in prison, he poses a threat to other inmates and the society in general because such persons find ways of escape. Once back to society, the criminals threaten killing other people. These criminals add to the expenses associated with finding them when they escape back to society. Therefore, the most effective way of eliminating such costs is to sentence the murderer to death, as it is the best punishment for the crime.
In countering the argument, it is known that the worst thing with the death penalty is that it is an irrevocable form of punishment. Therefore, once a criminal is executed, nothing can amend the situation in case of a mistake. The danger of executing innocent people prohibits the use of the death penalty as a form of punishment. Statistics indicate that courts have made several mistakes in executing innocent people to death. From 1973, statistics show that courts in the States have released about 88 people sentenced to death after proving their innocence (Band 3). In the course of that period, the courts executed about 650 people meaning that for every seven people executed, one was innocent and should not have faced the execution (Band 4). Because of such statistics, the risk of convicting innocent people is high and intolerable. In the business world, if an automobile industry operated with such failure rates, it would be removed from business. In the same manner therefore, the death penalty poses a greater risk of executing innocent people.
The death penalty is unfair because it discriminates on the offenders. Practically, capital punishment does not single out the worst criminals. On the contrary, this penalty selects the criminals arbitrarily based on irrational factors such as the race of the victim, quality of the defense or the country where the criminal committed the crime (Haugen and Musser 24). In addition, most of the criminals facing the death sentence are poor and rely on attorneys assigned by the state because they cannot afford their own lawyers. These attorneys are poorly paid and hence they hardly represent their clients well who eventually end up convicted to death.
In addition, the death penalty represents a violation of human rights and hence it should not be used to convict criminals of murder. “It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice.” This form of punishment violates the basic right to life and nobody has the right to take away another person’s life in form of fulfilling justice. No one deserves such a degrading and inhuman punishment because it would amount to judging the convict wrongly.
The death penalty is an ultimate deterrent to murder because it does not reduce the rate of the criminal act. For a punishment to be deterrent, it must be certain, frequent, and consistent (Gale 2). However, it is not possible to use the capital punishment in such a manner such that when a criminal is convicted of murder, the next thing for him or her is prompt execution. A potential criminal will still murder because the death penalty just acts as a threat and it does not address the causes of the crime. Furthermore, Ralph posited that life imprisonment is a severe punishment compared to the death sentence that can deter any rational human being from making a violent crime rather than using the death penalty (25). This is shown when crimes that crimes that served a mandatory life sentence were less committed compared to those carrying a mandatory death sentence.
In conclusion, I think the death penalty should be mandatory for people that kill other people. Justice exists if the criminal faces similar sentence as the victim of his or her actions. Some of the ways that murderers kill their victims are so cruel and the only best method to restore balance and for the society to see justice done would be to convict the criminal to death. The capital punishment deters future potential murderers from killing because they would not like to follow a similar path for their crimes. Religious doctrines, which most countries identify with, also support the death penalty as a just retribution for the murder crime. This form of punishment also reduces the cost of keeping the criminal in prison. Therefore, the death penalty should be mandatory for people that commit murder.
Revision Plans
In the first draft the introduction just highlighted my personal preference on the death penalty. The second draft saw the introduction of other alternative view point on the death penalty for murderers. Furthermore, a thesis for the argument was introduced. In the final draft the thesis statement was made more specific and was highlighted for easy identification. Literature was also introduced to back up the arguments in the introduction. Lastly, the introduction was blended with the body of the paper into a continuous essay.
Proposal and Support
A personal proposal and support was brought forward in the first draft. In the second draft, literature support was introduced to back up the proposal that the death penalty for murderer is just. In the third draft, paragraphs highlighting the major proposal and support points were brought forward. Furthermore, statistical data and facts in supporting my proposal were incorporated to strengthen the argument. The last revision was in blending the proposal and support segment with the whole essay to form a continuous one.
Counter-Argument
A personal argument on the death penalty for murderers was brought forward in the first draft. The second draft was revised by incorporating literatures that did not support the death sentence. Third draft saw the addition of examples from literature where the death sentence did not reduce murder rates. Furthermore, in the third draft the counter argument segment was blended into the whole essay to form a continuous one.
Conclusion
In the first draft, I restated my opinion on why I preferred the death sentence for murderers. The second draft saw the addition of more information which was a summary of what the whole paper was about. The third revision saw the thesis statement restated in the conclusion segment. The conclusion was then blended in the whole body of the essay to form one continuous work. The final revision for all segments was the editing and removal of errors in sentence structure and logic.
Works Cited
Florida Department of Corrections 2009-2010 statistics. Available at:
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/annual/0910/stats/im_escapes.html
Gale Opposing Viewpoints. “Capital Punishment and the law.” Current Issues, 2010.
Haugen, David and Musser, Susan. Criminal Justice. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009.
Jost, Kenneth. “Death Penalty Debates. Is the capital punishment system working?” CQ
Researcher, 20.41 (2010): 965-988.
Ralph, Dellapiana. “Should we put the death penalty on the chopping block?” Utah Bar Journal,
22.5 (2009): 24-29.
Band, Kenneth. “Update: Death Penalty”. Issues and Controversies On File, 2009.
