应不应该废除死刑 英语 辩论赛

是否同意废除死刑英语作文I believe that it is time to abolish the death penalty as a form of punishment. 我认为是时候废除死刑作为一种惩罚方式了。

The death penalty is a cruel and inhumane punishment that has no place in a civilized society. 死刑是一种残忍和不人道的惩罚，它在一个文明社会中是没有位置的。

Not only is the death penalty irreversible, but it also fails to act as a deterrent to crime. 死刑不仅是不可逆转的，而且它也不能作为对犯罪的威慑。

Countless studies have shown that the death penalty does not reduce crime rates, and in some cases, it may even lead to an increase in violent crime. 无数研究表明，死刑不会减少犯罪率，在一些情况下，它甚至可能导致暴力犯罪的增加。

Furthermore, the application of the death penalty is often biased and discriminatory, with marginalized and vulnerable populations beingdisproportionately affected. 此外，死刑的执行往往带有偏见和歧视，边缘化和弱势人群受到的影响十分不成比例。

As human beings, we should strive for a justice system that is fair, humane, and effective in deterring crime. 作为人类，我们应该追求一个公正、人道和有效的司法制度来阻吓犯罪。

应该废除死刑吗英语作文英文回答：Should the death penalty be abolished? This is a question that has sparked intense debate and controversy around the world. On one hand, proponents argue that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to crime and ensures that the most heinous criminals are permanently removed from society. On the other hand, opponents argue that the death penalty violates the right to life and that there is a risk of executing innocent individuals.Those in favor of abolishing the death penalty argue that it is a violation of human rights. Every individual has the right to life, regardless of their actions. Taking someone's life as a form of punishment is seen as a barbaric and outdated practice. Additionally, there is always the risk of executing innocent people. Mistakes can and have been made in the past, leading to the wrongful execution of individuals. This is a grave injustice thatcannot be undone.Furthermore, the death penalty does not necessarily serve as a deterrent to crime. Studies have shown that the presence of the death penalty does not significantly lower crime rates. Instead, it is more effective to focus on prevention, rehabilitation, and addressing the root causes of crime. By investing in education, social programs, and support systems, we can create a society where individuals are less likely to turn to crime in the first place.In contrast, proponents of the death penalty argue that it is necessary for justice and ensuring the safety of society. They believe that certain crimes are so heinous that the only appropriate punishment is death. The death penalty serves as a deterrent, sending a strong message to potential criminals that their actions will not be tolerated. Additionally, it provides closure to thevictims' families, knowing that the perpetrator will never be able to harm anyone else.However, despite these arguments, I believe that thedeath penalty should be abolished. It is a violation of human rights and there is always a risk of executing innocent individuals. Moreover, it does not effectively deter crime. Instead, we should focus on prevention, rehabilitation, and addressing the root causes of crime. By doing so, we can create a more just and compassionate society.中文回答：应该废除死刑吗？这个问题在世界各地引发了激烈的辩论和争议。

应该废除死刑吗英语作文英文回答：Should the death penalty be abolished? This is a complex and controversial question that has been debatedfor many years. Personally, I believe that the death penalty should be abolished for several reasons.Firstly, the death penalty is irreversible. Once a person is executed, there is no way to undo the punishment if new evidence emerges that proves their innocence. This has happened in numerous cases, where individuals have been wrongfully convicted and later exonerated due to DNA evidence or other factors. For example, in 2014, a man named Glenn Ford was released from death row in Louisiana after spending 30 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit. This highlights the inherent flaws and risks associated with the death penalty.Secondly, the death penalty does not deter crimeeffectively. Many studies have shown that there is no significant difference in crime rates between countries or states that have the death penalty and those that do not. For instance, the United States, which still practices capital punishment in some states, has a higher murder rate compared to many European countries that have abolished the death penalty. This suggests that the threat of death penalty does not deter individuals from committing serious crimes.Furthermore, the death penalty is often applied disproportionately to certain groups, such as racial minorities and individuals from low-income backgrounds. This raises concerns about fairness and justice in the criminal justice system. For example, a study conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union found that African Americans are more likely to be sentenced to death than white defendants, especially when the victim is white. This racial bias undermines the integrity and equality of the legal system.In addition, the death penalty is costly and a burdenon taxpayers. The lengthy appeals process and the high security measures required for death row inmates result in significant financial expenses. For example, a study conducted in California estimated that the state could save $1 billion over five years by abolishing the death penalty. These funds could be better allocated to improving education, healthcare, or other social programs thatbenefit society as a whole.In conclusion, the death penalty should be abolished due to its irreversible nature, lack of deterrence, potential for discrimination, and financial burden. It is important to focus on alternative forms of punishment that prioritize rehabilitation and justice rather than retribution. By doing so, we can create a more just and humane society.中文回答：应该废除死刑吗？这是一个复杂而有争议的问题，多年来一直存在争论。

应不应该废除死刑英语反方辩论赛辩词一辩、二辩、三辩、四辩发言稿一辩：Honorable judges, fellow debaters and audience members, I strongly believe that the death penalty should not be abolished. My reasons for this are as follows.Firstly, the death penalty serves as a deterrent to potential criminals. Knowing that the ultimate punishment awaits them if they commit a heinous crime can act as a powerful deterrent to those who might otherwise be inclined to engage in criminal activity.Secondly, the death penalty provides a sense of closure and justice for victims and their families. The families of victims are often devastated by the loss of their loved ones and the death penalty can provide them with a sense of retribution and closure.Lastly, the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous crimes, such as murder, terrorism, and treason. These crimes are so heinous that they deserve the ultimate punishment.In conclusion, the death penalty serves as a deterrent, provides closure and justice for victims and their families, and is reserved for the most heinous crimes. For these reasons, I strongly believe that the deathpenalty should not be abolished.二辩：Honorable judges, fellow debaters and audience members, I disagree with my opponent's argument that the death penalty should not be abolished. Here are my reasons.Firstly, the death penalty is an irreversible punishment. If a person is wrongly convicted and executed, there is no way to undo the damage that has been done. This has happened in the past, and it is a risk that we cannot afford to take.Secondly, the death penalty is often used disproportionately against marginalized communities. Studies have shown that people of color and those from low-income backgrounds are more likely to be sentenced to death than their counterparts. This is a clear example of systemic racism and injustice.Lastly, the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Studies have shown that the threat of the death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crimes. In fact, the countries that have abolished the death penalty have not seen a rise in crime rates.In conclusion, the death penalty is an irreversible punishment, often used disproportionately against marginalized communities, and is not an effective deterrent. For these reasons, I strongly believe that the death penalty should be abolished.三辩：Honorable judges, fellow debaters and audience members, I am here to support my teammate's argument that the death penalty should be abolished. Here are my additional reasons.Firstly, the death penalty is expensive. The cost of a death penalty trial is much higher than that of a non-death penalty trial. The appeals process is also much longer, which adds to the cost. This money could be better spent on other areas, such as education and healthcare. Secondly, the death penalty is inhumane. It is a cruel and unusual punishment that violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The use of lethal injection has been shown to cause excruciating pain, and there have been cases where the execution has gone wrong, causing even more suffering.Lastly, the death penalty does not allow for rehabilitation. When a person is sentenced to death, there is no opportunity for them to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. This goes against the idea of justice as a means of reforming individuals and preventing future crimes.In conclusion, the death penalty is expensive, inhumane, and does not allow for rehabilitation. For these reasons, I strongly believe that the death penalty should be abolished.四辩：Honorable judges, fellow debaters and audience members, I am here to refute the arguments made by the opposition and to reiterate why the death penalty should be abolished.Firstly, my opponents argue that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. However, studies have shown that this is not the case. In fact, the death penalty may actually increase crime rates by desensitizing people to violence and causing a culture of revenge. Secondly, my opponents argue that the death penalty provides closure for victims and their families. However, this is not always the case. The appeals process can drag on for years, causing even more trauma for the families of victims. Furthermore, closure is a subjective concept and cannot be achieved through the taking of another life. Lastly, my opponents argue that the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous crimes. However, this is not always the case. There have been cases where people have been sentenced to death for crimes that they did not commit, or where the punishment does not fit the crime.In conclusion, the death penalty is not a deterrent, does not provide closure for victims and their families, and is not always reserved for the most heinous crimes. For these reasons, I strongly believe that the death penalty should be abolished.。

Should death penalty be abolished or not?I think it should not be accepted because there might be people who go to jail to pay for the crimes other committed and it would be very unfair to kill someone who are innocent. I think that people who are very bad and who have such deep mental problems and kill people like Murderers should stay in Jail forever!In my opinion, it shouldn't be abolished. Those who make mistakes or 'blunders' must get paid so that our society has a good-conditioned order, just the same as the way we keep prisoners in prison from freedom. If there is any problem about it, it's the law's fault, but not the penalty itself.I believe in the death penalty. Like the saying goes, Eye for an eye. If someone intentionally does bodily harm to kill someone. Then they are giving up their right to live themselves. Why put them in jail for life and us tax payers fit the bill.I believe the death penalty should be abolished. In the Ten Commandments, it states, "Thou shall not kill". However, the government says it is all right to kill a murderer. "Do as I say not as I do"? There is no proof that the death penalty deters crime. Also, innocent people are sentenced to the death penalty and executed. I agree about the financial burdens. It has been proven that it is cheaper to sentence a criminal to life in prison than to the death penalty.I think the Death Penalty should still stand. Why keep a murderer alive after taking an innocent life? The appeals are there for the wrongfully convicted, but if they're caught at the scene, or have items leading to the murder, they should be sentenced to death, not life in prison. The longer we keep them alive, the higher our taxes become. When they appeal, the money should be out of their OWN pockets. Why should a murderer deserve to breathe the air that we do after committing such a heinous crime? WE pay to keep them alive. Why should we pay to keep them that way?In r eal life , ther e are still very serious crimes of endangering national security , endan ger public safety, civil rights violations , undermine social order . The existence of the death penalty system is conducive（有益于）to crack down（镇压）and punish these crimes , thus strongly on major interests of the state and the people be pr otected .The existence of the death penalty system is also conducive to achieving the purpose of punishment . For those who commit the most heinous criminals of various types , and only apply the death penalty ( including the reprieve ) , so that he can not or dare no t crime , special precautions so as to achieve the purpose of punishment .Does urbanization do more good than bad?。

我反对废除死刑。

众所周知，中国还是一个发展中国家，经济比较落后，人口众多且素质参差不齐，社会治安和各种犯罪活动还相当猖獗。

甚至，中国的政治体制和司法制度还存在着种种缺陷，所以社会还处于高危犯罪的多发期。

这样的局面在相当长的时期都不会有根本改善。

很显然，法学界废除死刑的呼吁不符合我国的国情。

首先，死刑的废除和社会的民主程度是成正比的，如上所说现在中国还不具备这种条件。

其次，死刑对犯罪有很大震慑作用。

虽然死刑不能杜绝一切犯罪，但起码能震慑防止犯罪，减少严重的刑事案件的发案率，有利于维护社会的稳定。

最后，废除死刑不仅仅是一个法律问题，它除了涉及罪与刑，还涉及一个民族对生死的认知和理解问题。

中国人的生死价值观，几千年来亘古未变。

所谓的人伦道德就是杀人偿命。

综上所述，效仿西方的发达国家废除死刑在中国根本行不通。

I am opposed to the abolition of the death penalty.As is known to all, China is still a developing country, economy is backward, and a large population and the quality is uneven, public security and criminal activities are still quite rampant.Even, political system and the judicial system of China, there are a variety ofdefects, so the society is still in the high risk of crime Tuesday. The situation for a long time will not have fundamental improvement.It is obvious that calls for a law to abolish the death penalty is not in conformity with the national conditions of our country.First of all, the abolition of the death penalty is in direct proportion to the degree of democracy and society, as mentioned China also does not have this kind of condition now.Second, the death penalty is of great deterrent to crime. Although the death penalty can't eliminate all crime, but at least can deter crime prevention, reduce the types of serious criminal cases, is conducive to maintaining social stability.Finally, the abolition of the death penalty is not only a legal problem, it besides involving crime and punishment, also involves a question of national awareness and understanding of life and death. Chinese values, life and death for thousands of years unchanged since the beginning of time. The so-called morality is that if you kill people and your life is instead.To sum up, follow the western developed countries to abolish the death penalty in China don't work.。

Death penalty should be abolishedThe death penalty has been one of the most controversial debates throughout history. But in modern society is a civilized society，more and more country have been abolished the death penalty, In my point of view, death penalty is a violent and brutal act that is against human moral principles and does little good for the country. Therefore, it should be abolished definitely, especially in this highly civilized society.The death penalty is a kind of punishment method, it has the general features of the punishment, but it is most the severe punishment method. On the one hands, no matter what a person did some bad things, life is the foundation of all rights, almost the rights attached to the life right. Life is precious, if a person dead, he will lose all the things. And with the development of human society, we have been entering a civil society, so abolished death penalty humanity behavior. On the other hands, this method not only bring the physical pain to the criminal, but also made them families have some emotion troubles, they will fall into suffering for a long time. We should not curb violence with violence. Maybe we can take some method to educated them to realized how important for themselves to be a good person whether for them, their children or parents. We can let those people to some hard work for society, and let them to know the value of doing good things, thus atone for themselves crime. Death penalty is cruel, though many people said death penalty is more save money than putthe person in prison, however, the value of life is not in money.I think with the development of human society and the social civilized degree enhancement, the abolition of the death penalty is inevitable.。

是否同意废除死刑英语作文英文回答：The death penalty, a topic of intense debate with strong arguments on both sides, has been a form of punishment in various societies for centuries. While some advocate for its abolition, others believe it is a necessary deterrent to certain heinous crimes.Arguments for Abolition.1. Inherent Morality: Many argue that the death penalty is an inherently immoral act, violating the fundamental right to life. It is considered cruel and inhumane and does not align with modern notions of justice.2. Disproportionate Application: Studies have shownthat the death penalty is often applied disproportionately against minorities and the poor, raising concerns about racial and socioeconomic bias in the criminal justicesystem.3. Irreversibility: Unlike other forms of punishment, the death penalty is irreversible. In cases of wrongful convictions, which can and do occur, the consequences are irreversible and cannot be rectified.4. Lack of Deterrence: While proponents argue that the death penalty deters crime, research has not consistently found this to be the case. Other studies have shown that it may even have the opposite effect by desensitizing society to violence and contributing to a climate of fear.5. Alternatives: Abolitionists propose alternative forms of punishment, such as life imprisonment without parole, which they believe provide sufficient retribution and protection of society while also preserving thesanctity of human life.Arguments for Retention.1. Deterrence: Proponents argue that the death penaltyserves as a powerful deterrent against the most heinous crimes, such as murder, terrorism, and treason. They believe it sends a strong message that such acts will not be tolerated.2. Retribution: Many believe that the death penalty provides a just punishment for those who commit the most severe crimes. They argue that it ensures that justice is served and that the victims' families receive closure.3. Protection of Society: Supporters of the death penalty contend that it is necessary to protect society from dangerous individuals who pose a continued threat to the safety of others. They argue that life imprisonment may not be sufficient to prevent some offenders from reoffending.4. Cost-Effectiveness: Proponents argue that the death penalty can be more cost-effective than life imprisonment over a long period due to the shorter timeframe involved.5. Public Opinion: In some countries, public opinionpolls indicate support for the retention of the death penalty, particularly for certain categories of crimes.中文回答：对于废除死刑的看法。

应不应该废除死刑英语正方辩论赛辩词一辩、二辩、三辩、四辩发言稿一辩：Ladies and gentlemen, today we are here to discuss whether the death penalty should be abolished. As the first speaker of the affirmative side, I strongly believe that the death penalty should be abolished. Firstly, the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime. Studies have shown that countries without the death penalty have lower crime rates than those that still practice it. In addition, many criminals who commit capital offenses do not consider the consequences of their actions, so the threat of death may not deter them.Secondly, the justice system is not perfect, and innocent people have been sentenced to death in the past. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1973, over 160 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence was discovered. The risk of executing an innocent person is unacceptable and cannot be justified.Lastly, the death penalty is a violation of human rights. The right to life is a fundamental human right that should be protected by the state. The state should not have the power to take away someone's life, regardless of the severity of their crimes.In conclusion, the death penalty should be abolished because it is not an effective deterrent to crime, innocent people have been sentenced to death, and it is a violation of human rights.二辩：Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. As the second speaker of the affirmative side, I would like to further support the argument that the death penalty should be abolished.Firstly, the death penalty is not cost-effective. The cost of a death penalty trial is much higher than that of a non-capital trial due to the lengthy appeals process and the cost of keeping the offender on death row. This money could be better spent on improving the criminal justice system or on programs that can prevent crime. Secondly, the death penalty is often used disproportionately against certain groups, such as minorities and the poor. This is a clear violation of the principle of equal justice under the law.Thirdly, the death penalty is not necessary to protect society. Life imprisonment without parole is an adequate punishment for even the most heinous crimes.Lastly, the death penalty is not supported by most of the world's democracies. In fact, the majority of countries have abolished the death penalty, and the trend is moving towards its abolition worldwide. In conclusion, the death penalty should be abolished because it is notcost-effective, it is often used disproportionately against certain groups, it is not necessary to protect society, and it is not supported by most of the world's democracies.三辩：Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. As the first speaker of the negative side, I would like to argue that the death penalty should not be abolished.Firstly, the death penalty is a just punishment for the most heinous crimes. Some crimes, such as murder, are so egregious that they warrant the ultimate punishment. The death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for such crimes.Secondly, the death penalty serves as a deterrent to crime. Knowing that they could face the death penalty may deter potential criminals from committing capital offenses. The threat of the death penalty can also prevent convicted murderers from committing further crimes while in prison.Thirdly, the death penalty provides closure for victims' families. The families of murder victims often feel that the death penalty is the only way to achieve justice and closure for their loved one's death. Lastly, the death penalty is supported by the majority of the American public. According to a Gallup poll, 55% of Americans support the death penalty for convicted murderers.a just punishment for the most heinous crimes, it serves as a deterrent to crime, it provides closure for victims' families, and it is supported by the majority of the American public.四辩：Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. As the second speaker of the negative side, I would like to further support the argument that the death penalty should not be abolished.Firstly, the death penalty is an important tool for law enforcement. It allows prosecutors to negotiate plea bargains with defendants, which can result in valuable information that can help solve other crimes. Secondly, the death penalty provides justice for society as a whole. The punishment of the most heinous crimes sends a message that society will not tolerate such behavior and helps to maintain law and order.Thirdly, the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, and lethal injection is a painless and humane method of execution.Lastly, the death penalty is not a violation of human rights. The right to life is not an absolute right, and the state has the right to use the death penalty in certain circumstances.an important tool for law enforcement, it provides justice for society as a whole, it is not cruel and unusual punishment, and it is not a violation of human rights.。

No state has an absolute right to put its worst criminals to death although a majority of a state's residents may wish to confer that right on it. Of course all states do kill people, even where they do not have the death penalty. Our police are armed (by the state) and people get killed in shoot outs with them.DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. One of the biggest arguments against the death penalty is the possibility of error. Sure, we can never completely eliminate all uncertainty, but nowadays, it's about as close as you can get. DNA testing is over 99 percent effective. And even if DNA testing and other such scientific methods didn't exist, the trial and appeals process is so thorough it's next to impossible to convict an innocent person. Remember, a jury of 12 members must unanimously decide there's not even a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. The number of innocent people that might somehow be convicted is no greater than the number of innocent victims of the murderers who are set free.LWOP cannot prevent or deter offenders from killing prison staff or other inmates (299 homicides occurred in state prisons between 2001 and 2006) or taking hostages to further an escape bid, because they have nothing to lose by so doing.However good the security of a prison, someone will always try to escape and occasionally will be successful. If you have endless time to plan an escape and everything to gain from doing so, there is a very strong incentive.We have no guarantee that future state administrations will not release offenders who were imprisoned years previously, on the recommendations of various professionals who are against any form of punishment in the first place. Twenty or 30 years later, it is very difficult to remember the awfulness of an individual's crime and easy to claim that they have reformed.The death penalty is important because it could save the lives of thousands of potential victims who are at stakeIt should also be noted that only those convicted of first degree murder with aggravating circumstances can be given the death penalty. These aggravating factors include such things as torturing, kidnapping, raping or robbing their victim.I heard on the news last month, February 2000, where a 62 year-old grandmother, Betty Beets, was pleading for her life because she was on death row and was going to be executed. At first, I felt very sorry for her, but after doing research on her, I learned she had five husbands. She had already killed the fourth one, and served a prison sentence for murder, and she got out of prison early. She murdered the fifth husband-she shot him, and buried him in her back yard. Betty Beets was imprisoned a second time, and now was pleading for her life? It has been proven these killers do it again and again. The rate of recidivism is high for people who commit murder and crimes. I feel murderers should be executed the first time because chances are they will come out of prison and kill another innocent person again. We need stricter laws and swift death penalty.Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. It's time we put the emphasis of our criminal justice system back on protecting the victim rather than the accused. Remember, a person who's on death row has almost always committed crimes before this. A long line of victims have been waiting for justice. We need justice for current and past victims.The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. Some family members of crime victims may take years or decades to recover from the shock and loss of a loved one. Some may never recover. One of the things that helps hasten this recovery is to achieve some kind of closure. Life in prison just means the criminal is still around to haunt the victim. A death sentence brings finality to a horrible chapter in the lives of these family members.Justice: “I hold life sacred, and because I hold it sacred, I feel that anyone who takes some one’s life should know that thereby he forsakes his own and does not just suffer an inconvenience about being put into prison for sometimeJustice is better served. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, doesn't it make sense that the punishment for the perpetrator also be death?CostMoney is not an inexhaustible commodity and the state may very well better spend our tax dollars on the old, the young and the sick rather than the long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists etc.However in the USA the cost of executing someone over giving them life in prison is often higher. This is because of endless appeals being allowed in most states where the average time spent on death row is over 16 years. It is estimated that a capital case resulting in execution costs $3-4 million, whereas the typical cost of keeping someone in prison is $30-35,000 a year or less than a million dollars for a typical life sentence. However this figure does not include for appeals and the increasing cost of health care as inmates age. The states of Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Montana and New Hampshire have all considered abolition due to the high cost of capital cases effecting their budget deficits. California will spend an estimated $137 millionduring 2009 on its 700 capital cases.Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill.Retribution.Execution is a very real punishment rather than some form of "rehabilitative" treatment, the criminal is made to suffer in proportion to the offence. Whether there is a place in a modern society for the old fashioned principal of "an eye for an eye" is a matter of personal opinion. Retribution is seen by many as a reason for favoring the death penalty. It is also felt by many families of murder victims to be a strong reason for witnessing the execution of their loved one's murderer, in states that allow this, as it provides closure for them. Anti capital punishment campaigners are fond of mis-quoting Ghandi’s saying that "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind". This is nonsense because it wrongly presumes that we all commit murder, whereas only a tiny proportion of people do. Given a population of around 306 million and a homicide rate of around 15,200 per annum less than 0.4% of the population actually commit a homicide in any given year. Or conversely 99.6% of us do not kill.$500 - 600 per week at present for an ordinary prisoner which is around $800,000 - £900,000 for a typical sentence of 30 years served in an ordinary prison. The cost is much higher for maximum security prisoners.Soaring health care costs for ageing inmates is a major problem in many states. In Kentucky with a relatively small prison population it is estimated that it will cost the state $20 million in 2010 for inmate health care.We should weigh the death of the convicted murders against the loss of life of his victims and the possibility of potential victims to murder (p. 129)In arguments of the death penalty, there are two lives to think about. Too much emphasis is placed on the convicted murderer, the one being executed, and the victim is all forgotten.Remember, the death penalty saves lives. Repeat murders are eliminated and foreseeable murders are deterred. You must consider the victim as well as the defendant.I feel murderers should be executed the first time because chances are they will come out of prison and kill another innocent person again. We need stricter laws and swift death penalty.Deterrentthe Federal prison had a man sentenced to Life who, since he has been in prison committed three more murders on three separate occasions .They were prison guards and inmates. There’s no more punishment he can receive, therefore, in many cases, the death penalty is the only penalty that can deter.The laws today are too lenient. If there is no death penalty in your state, and a criminal kills someone, it is because he felt he could get out in 10 years or less from prison. There is no fear of death for him. They see other murderers in the state get away with murder, so they, too, can get away with it. They don’t have to fear the death penalty. In fact, I read where a husband intentionally moved to a non death penalty state, so he could murder his wife and get away with it. Many murders are premeditated. People in the “heat of passion”should make it a point to evade the argument or the environment. Remember it could be one of your loved ones. Can you imagine what it would be like to have your loved one murdered? There are no words that can explain the loss of your loved one to murder.In California, as in most death penalty jurisdictions, to sentence a defendant to death the fact-finder must make three determinations: (1) that the defendant committed a first-degree murder; (2) that the defendant meets the statutory criteria for death-eligibility; and (3) that, in light of the aggravating and mitigating factors, the defendant deserves the death penalty. In California, the first two determinations are made together at the guilt phase of the trial when the fact-finder decides whether the defendant is guilty of first-degree murder and whether any charged special circumstance is true. If the defendant is found guilty and a special circumstance is found true, the case proceeds to a penalty phase, where the fact-finder determines the defendant‘s sentence. At the penalty phase, the fact-finder is directed to take into account a list of eleven factors, the first of which is ―[t]he circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the present proceeding and the existence of any special circumstances found to be true.‖The fact-finder will impose the death penalty if the fact-finder concludes that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. The list of factors does not consist of propositional questions but instead directs the sentencer to consider certain subjects, and the sentencer is not required to make findings as to any of the factors. Nor is the sentencer limited by the direction to weigh aggravation against mitigation; rather, ―[e]ach juror is free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value he deems appropriate to each and all of the various factors he is permitted to consider‖and to decide whether death is ―the appropriate penalty under all the circumstances.‖The breadth of death-eligibility under the California scheme is a product of the interplay between the definition of first-degree murder and the definition of the special circumstances. At present, there are twenty-one categories of first-degree murder, divided into two groups: eight categories of malice-murder, and thirteen categories of felony-murder. There are thirty-three separately enumerated special circumstances that render a first-degree murderer death-eligible, including twelve felony-murder special circumstances. The California Supreme Court has held unconstitutional on vagueness grounds the ―heinous, atrocious or cruel‖special circumstance, but all of the remaining special circumstances call for a relatively narrow factual determination by the fact-finder, in contrast with the more open-ended eligibility factors used in other states. Thirty of the remaining thirty-two special circumstances—all but the ―prior murder‖circumstance, and, in rare cases, the multiple- murder circumstance —single out purportedly aggravating circumstances of the crime itself.Steven F. Shatz, The Eighth Amendment, the Death Penalty andOrdinary Robbery-Burglary Murderers: A California Case Study41. Who is the fact-finder?[A] Judge [B] Court [C] Policeman [D] Jury42. In the context of the paragraphs, who is the sentencer?[A] Judge [B] Court [C] Defense lawyer [D] Juror43. ―The breadth of death-eligibility under the California scheme is a product of the interplay between the definition of first-degree murder and the definition of the special circumstances.‖This sentence means .[A] The definition of first-degree murder and the definition of the special circumstances are provided for in California law.[B] Whether or not a person can be sentenced with death penalty depends on how the sentencer explains first-degree murder and the special circumstances.[C] Whether or not a person can be sentenced with death penalty depends on how the sentencer combines first-degree murder with the special circumstances.[D] Whether or not a person can be sentenced with death penalty depends on how the sentencer fits the fact situation into the scheme of first-degree murder and the special circumstances.44. According to the last paragraph, how many of the felony-murder special circumstances is (are) not death-eligible?The American Civil Liberties Union believes the death penalty inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantees of due process of law and of equal protection under the law. Furthermore, we believe that the state should not give itself the right to kill human beings –especially when it kills with premeditation and ceremony, in the name of the law or in the name of its people, and when it does so in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion.Capital punishment is an intolerable denial of civil liberties and is inconsistent with the fundamental values of our democratic system. The death penalty is uncivilized in theory and unfair and inequitable in practice. Through litigation, legislation, and advocacy against this barbaric and brutal institution, we strive to prevent executions and seek the abolition of capital punishment.The ACLU’s opposition to capital punishment incorporates the following fundamental concerns:The death penalty system in the US is applied in an unfair and unjust manner against people,largely dependent on how much money they have, the skill of theirattorneys, race of the victim and where the crime took place. People of color are far more likely to be executed than white people, especially if thevictim is whiteThe death penalty is a waste of taxpayer funds and has no public safety benefit. The vast majority of law enforcement professionals surveyed agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime; a survey of police chiefs nationwide found they rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crime. They ranked increasing the number of police officers, reducing drug abuse, and creating a better economy with more jobs higher than the death penalty as the best ways to reduce violence. The FBI has found the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates.Innocent people are too often sentenced to death. Since 1973, over 140 people have been released from death rows in 26 states because of innocence. Nationally, at least one person is exonerated for every 10 that are executed.。