Death penalty should be allowed for a myriad of reasons and there are some points that the con side did not address. To begin with the con side said, “A second chance should be given in life before a death penalty,” but in fact most people wait many years on death row before they are killed, and so they have much time to prove that they are innocent. If you are not trying to to prove yourself innocent, then you are not really trying and do not care about your life. Some prisoners would prefer the death penalty so that they don’t have the guilt of the crime committed weighing down their minds for the rest of their lives.
Additionally the con side quoted that “To kill the person who has killed someone close to you, is simply to continue the violence which destroys the avenger as well as the offender.” They are saying we should not put them on death row, but if we do not do that then we have to put them in jail and as we get more prisoners then the prisons get overfull, and we have to provide the supplies necessary for their survival: food, education, shelter for more of them since more and more people are being sent to prison because they did something awful.
Lastly, one of the con side’s other reason says something about religion, “Religion also plays a important part in Death penalty. Everyone is taught that they should be given a second chance” The thing about religion though, is that it is an unreliable source and excuse for many things having to do with politics. This is the reason we have this little thing called “Separation of Church and State.” Ever heard of it? I think so. Religion should not be a deciding factor in laws. One of the con side’s reasons said every one should deserve a second chance in life, but who ever gave the person that got killed by the accused a second chance?
A few sources, just for good measure:
No comments:
Post a Comment