May 4, 2015
In the article, Why the Death Penalty Needs to Die, by Nick Gillespie, Nick argues that the death penalty is faulty. “The recent botched executions are just the tip of the iceberg. The death penalty is and always has been a financial and moral disaster” (Gillespie, 2014). Gillespie says “the death penalty wastes money, has no effect on murder rates, and is sometimes tossed at innocent people. Those three reasons are more than enough to end it once and for all” (Gillespie, 2014). The only thing that Nick Gillespie said in his article is that the death penalty is sometimes tossed at innocent people. He is being logical when he talks about this. Innocent people is the only reason I would rebuttal the death penalty. In the article, The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? By Dudley Sharp, he argues that the death penalty protects more innocents than life without parole. He stated “The death penalty protects innocents, in three ways, better than life without parole (LWOP): enhanced due process, enhanced incapacitation and enhanced deterrence (Sharp, 2013).” Enhanced incapacitation means that living murderers are more likely to kill again than an executed murderer. Sharp said that in his research nearly 100% of capital murderers prefer to have life without parole than the death penalty.
The death penalties purpose is that the penalty fits the crime. People argue that a lifetime behind bars without parole is crueler than execution. I do agree that some inmates deserve, but murderers, serial killers? Should they get three meals a day, TV, a bed to sleep on, health care? Many law abiding citizens are not even capable of one meal. He claims that it is more expensive to use the death penalty than for them to stay in prison for a lifetime. I disagree, but I do agree that we should find a way to make the death penalty cost less and become more effective. The