Convicted Murder example essay topic

A Time for Every Purpose Many have heard the story of the homeless man who was struck by a car and lodged in the windshield. The driver of the vehicle, Chante Japan Mallard, was twenty-seven at the time of the accident. She was also under the influence of marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol when she struck the homeless man on her way home in the early morning of October 26, 2001. After she hit the poor, helpless, homeless man, she did not do what most people would have done. Instead of taking him to the hospital, or calling 911, she proceeded to drive home with the man still suffering in her windshield. Her defense attorney, Jeff Kearney, rationalized her actions by saying that, "Mallard was just one exit from her home, so she kept driving [... ]" (qty. in Brown).

Her actions were unbelievable and cruel torture for her victim, but his suffering did not end during the ride to Mallard's home. When they arrived at her home, Mallard pulled her car into the garage and decided to leave the man there dying. She had made up her mind that she was not going to get into trouble for this, so she opted to leave the man there in excruciating pain until he died. In some cases, the death penalty should not be implemented, but this is a very good example of someone who should be charged with the death penalty.

The death penalty should not be used in certain cases when a murder is not vicious, but it should be utilized when the murder is particularly violent, and a victim is forced to suffer a great deal before his or her death. When a murder is especially heinous, and the victim must endure a lot of pain before death, the death penalty is a necessary objective. No one wants to die and dying because another human being has decided to end your life is a horrible thought. Humans can be especially cruel and unjust. The only hope there is for ending the occurrence of horrendous murders is to make potential murderers understand that those crimes will not be tolerated.

Edward I. Koch explains, "If we create a society in which injustice is not tolerated, incidents of murder - the most flagrant form of injustice - will diminish" (559). When people realize committing a vicious murder will result in none other than the death penalty, the murders will decrease dramatically. Still, many people believe that the death penalty is not an answer that will solve the problem of murder. Those who oppose the death penalty argue that it is possible that the wrong person could be convicted, and then an innocent person would be executed for no good reason. Executing an innocent person would be just as horrible as the murder itself. However, there are many ways to ensure that the convicted murder is truly the one who committed the crime.

Nowadays, there are advancements in science which give DNA evidence and other tests which can not be mistaken. Also, there are several levels of appeals once a person has been sentenced to the death penalty. A convicted killer can appeal many times and get other trials, and only after he has been convicted again and again will he be put to death. Another reason that the death penalty should be given to a person is because no one wants to release cold-blooded killers out onto the streets. Yet, keeping the murderers alive in prison is economically unreasonable.

Taxpayers do not want to have to pay their hard earned money just to keep a vicious killer alive. If a person could commit a truly horrible crime, there is no chance for rehabilitation. A person who has committed a murder that is virtually painless to an individual, or killed for extenuating circumstances, does have a chance to be rehabilitated and should be kept alive for life imprisonment. Those who have committed especially violent murders have no place in society, and therefore the American public should not be forced to pay for their room and board for an entire lifetime. Those who oppose the death penalty would argue that other humans do not have the authority to sentence another human to death.

Harry Blackmun asks", [... ] does the system accurately and consistently determine which defendants 'deserve' to die?" (578). Many do not believe that a judge and jury should be able to choose if a person's life should be ended. Nevertheless, the murderer did not have authority to end his victim's life, and he still executed the killing. He did not consider the value of a human life or how much pain he was causing to another human being, and therefore he has forfeited his right for life imprisonment. There is no reason to waste our tax dollars in order to support the funding of a murderer who has caused much suffering and pain in murdering a victim.

Finally, there are times when a murderer's life should be spared. When a murder is not especially gruesome and the victim died quickly and painlessly, the murderer should be given a chance to live and possibly be rehabilitated and reform themselves into a better person. The current system is very good at executing decisions of sentencing one to the death penalty. Potter Stewart explains, "If the verdict is death the jury or judge must specify the aggravating circumstance (s) found" (569). It is important to determine the severity of a murder, and if the victim was not tortured and died fairly quickly, the offender should be allowed to receive life imprisonment. Many could say that this is unfair treatment, that every murderer should be subjected to the same penalty for the same crime.

Yet, in the end, different crimes have varying circumstances. Those circumstances which include cruel and unnecessary pain for the victim before death require a more severe punishment, which is the death penalty. Murder is a crime which is becoming a very serious problem in the United States today. It needs to be stopped, and although that may never happen, the death penalty is one way of reducing the number of murders which are committed. Once people realize that murdering a person in a painful and gruesome way will result in the death penalty, the future of America will be a much safer place to live in.