Most people around the world think that death penalty sentence is fair and effective but they do not think that the risk of executing innocent ones is too high.
Capital punishment does have its positive sides but negative sides seem to go unnoticed. So many innocent people have lost their lives for a crime they never committed. The risk of executing the innocent way higher, the death penalty is not reversible; it’s final, unlike other punishments. If after execution, new evidence is brought up that proves the innocence of a convicted criminal, that person would lose the chance of freedom since the death penalty has already been applied to the person. It does not matter whether an innocent person is killed by a criminal or executed mistakenly, murder is murder. However it seems that in view of some people, killing an innocent by the rope of law is fine but getting killed by the hand of criminal is crime (metaphor). According to the report of USA 47% of the 4500 cases were overturned by the future evidences that proved they were innocent, many of those persons were already executed so there was nothing they could do about it. But fortunately some of them were still in prison waiting to be executed, who were then released upon receiving the evidences.
Another reason is that it costs a lot to execute a person. The capital crime trials cost approximately $2.3 million per case (Fact). Cost is way more expensive than keeping the person in prison for life. In 1991, state of America, New Jersey paid off 500 police officers and at the same time it was preceding the death penalty which was to cost approximately $16 million per year which is higher than the cost of hiring 500 police officers at a salary rate of $30,000 US per year. Florida also spends $57 million to execute 18 offenders in1988, the average rate of per execution is $3.2 million. On one hand the cost for execution is too high than the life imprisonment and on the other hand the risk of executing innocent is too high so why on earth should we allow the capital punishment? Why should not keep the person in prison for life so if there is any evidence that can be brought up in future to show the person’s innocence, he can be pronounced free? Why should not give the offender the chance to rehabilitate because the priority of law is to finish crime not to kill people who commit crime? (rule of three)
There are so many reports produced by different group of government that show the evidences of racial discrimination. According to the statistics from 1930 to 1990, the office of Government Accounting reports facts about racial discrimination. They proved that "those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks". However nowadays the issue has changed, it’s now less towards the racial discrimination but issue is of money. People who have money to hire a better lawyer has higher change of escaping from death penalty even by committing serious crimes than those who have to stay with the lawyer provided by the court and cannot afford a better lawyer. Therefore the one who can prepare for better defense has the chance to get away with the crime leaving poor ones at the risk of receiving the sentence of death penalty which is not fair at all so to prevent that capital punishment should be eliminated.
Everyone who commits something wrong deserves a chance of rehabilitate so that the crime can be destroyed instead of destroying the one who commits it. While the rehabilitation programs are not that effective in reforming the criminals but at least it does have some kind of good impact on all the criminals who have gone through this process and there are some who have really reformed to their previous state of good citizen by going through these programs. There is a greater chance of people to be reformed if more of these programs are introduced to offenders which is actually a lot cheaper than going through the process of death penalty.
In conclusion, the capital punishment should not be allowed because the first priority of law is to protect the innocent and the possibility of convicting and executing innocent ones for something they did not commit is too high. The procedure is too expensive to go through that it is even higher than keeping the person in prison for life is cheaper which actually eliminates the risk of killing innocent person because if any evidence proving the offender innocent is brought up, the person can be released. The thought of killing an innocent by the rope of law is fine but getting killed by the hand of criminal is crime (repetition) is not fair and is against the law of equal rights. To prevent the poor ones and minority groups of people to get executed, it is hard to provide them with high end lawyers but by banning capital punishment, the risk of taking their lives can be reduced. Why not give offenders a chance to reform? (Rhetorical question)
Devices I used in my speech
- Should the capital punishment to allow? (Rhetorical question)
- However it seems that in view of some people, killing an innocent by the rope of law is fine but getting killed by the hand of criminal is crime (metaphor).
- The capital crime trials cost approximately $2.3 million per case (Fact)
- On one hand the cost for execution is too high than the life imprisonment and on the other hand the risk of executing innocent is too high so why on earth should we allow the capital punishment? Why should not keep the person in prison for life so if there is any evidence that can be brought up in future to show the person’s innocence, he can be pronounced free? Why should not give the offender the chance to rehabilitate because the priority of law is to finish crime not to kill people who commit crime? (rule of three)
- killing an innocent by the rope of law is fine but getting killed by the hand of criminal is crime (repetition)
- Why not give offenders a chance to reform? (rhetorical question)
