By Emma Goularte
One of the most controversial topic in 2018 is whether or not we should have the death penalty. Should we kill people who did heinous things? I believe in having consequences for people paying for what they did.
But there is always a ‘what if’ in these kinds of situations. What if the wrong person is convicted? What if the guilty party gets away with the crime they did? There are so many things that could create such an awful outcome ten times worse. It is hard to choose a side because of the ‘what ifs’ but I believe that there should be consequences but not ones that end a human life. I believe there should not be a death penalty.
According to Prison Policy Initiative, 1,316,000 people are in state prisons for serious crimes such as murder, robbery, drugs, sexual assault, and many more. There are 615,000 in local jails for less serious crimes such as things that involve violence and drugs. This is less serious because of either the amount of drugs or if they are selling them or if you are making them yourself, property such as stealing or robbery of things in houses or vandalism, public order, and others. These crimes are considered less serious because the punishment isn’t very serious they can pay fines but they usually don’t involve jail time. People go to local jails when their crimes aren’t as dangerous or they aren’t going to be there for a life sentence or a long time.
Some people may argue that someone made the choice to murder or hurt someone, which is correct, and should have the death penalty. But what about those that aren’t mentally stable and think they are doing what they are supposed to. Others may argue that if you take another life away then you should have yours taken too. Those are both important sides but even though those people did heinous things, they are still human beings. Why should we be responsible to say when their life should end? Why should we give people the right to kill others and say it’s the right thing? They are still murdering a person, so what makes them any better than the person who first committed the crime?
The first death penalty was in 1608 and I believe the act is old fashioned. They didn’t have prisons the way we do today; when they publicly executed people in front of the town they believed that’s what they deserved. At the time maybe that’s the best they could do in those situations but I believe there is a better way then ending a life. There are always multiple choices and we can find another way to make them pay for their actions but it should be in a less violent way. I believe that it should be a life sentence without a chance of parole because they need to live their whole life thinking about what they have done and doing good things. They can never make up for what they did but they can to good things to become a better person.