Argumentative Essay 2 Final Essay Open Topic See List ✓ Solved

Argumentative Essay 2 Final Essayopen Topic See List

Open topic: See list of 38 suggested topics uploaded on Blackboard under “Content.” Some suggestions include: Love and Family Identity, Man Versus Nature, Technology, Gender, Marriage Relationships, Revenge, Prejudice, Coming of Age, Individualism Versus Society, etc. You may consider developing a sound argument about today's society with respect to the topic.

LENGTH: At least 1500 words (Works Cited not included in count). An Argumentative Essay is not merely a summary of a topic. Instead, it is an argument about the work that expresses a writer’s personal perspective, interpretation, judgment, or critical evaluation of the topic. This is accomplished by examining the devices, word choices, or writing structures the author or source use to elaborate on the topic of choice.

Quality research is based on well-documented information, which is presented to the audience properly, by using quotes, paraphrasing, and summarization. The assignment requires to cite and implement at least three (3) sources for this essay broken down as such: 1. Identify articles, journals, magazines, scholarly journals, websites, etc., published from a credible source which highlights the issue found in society. Key Requirements: Essays will be written in MLA style, typed double-spaced in Times New Roman 12-pt font using black ink only. Minimum 1000 words required.

Essays must also be properly formatted, paginated, and include a proper Works Cited page to receive full credit. Works Cited must be typed in alphabetical order with a “Hanging” indentation used. The list of sources on the Works Cited list must be included in the essay.

Plagiarism: As a college student, you must be aware of the seriousness of copying, cutting and pasting, or even paraphrasing another person’s words without giving due credit to that individual.

Paper For Above Instructions

The topic of capital punishment, or the death penalty, remains one of the most contentious issues in contemporary society. Proponents argue that it serves as a deterrent to crime, while opponents highlight the ethical concerns surrounding its implementation. In this essay, I will argue against the effectiveness of capital punishment, asserting that it not only fails to deter crime but also poses significant moral and legal concerns.

Capital punishment has its roots in ancient civilisations, where execution was meted out as a punishment for a variety of crimes, ranging from theft to murder. Modern discourse on the subject often revolves around its perceived utility. Supporters claim that the death penalty acts as a strong deterrent, suggesting that potential offenders might think twice before committing heinous acts, knowing that they could face execution as a consequence (Bowers & Pierce, 2011). However, numerous studies have shown that states with the death penalty do not experience lower crime rates than those without it (Radelet & Akers, 1996). In fact, the National Research Council states that there is no credible evidence that capital punishment significantly deters crime more effectively than life imprisonment (Nagin & Pepper, 2012). This leads to the conclusion that the death penalty is, in fact, a weak deterrent and does not confer the societal protection that its advocates claim it does.

Furthermore, the application of the death penalty raises profound moral questions. Many argue that taking a life is inherently unethical, regardless of the circumstances. The state should not engage in the same behaviors it seeks to punish. Philosopher Albert Camus posited that “capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders” (Camus, 1957). This perspective invokes the fundamental human rights tradition that holds life as sacrosanct. The possibility of executing an innocent person adds another layer of complexity to the moral argument. Various instances have arisen where individuals on death row have been exonerated due to new evidence or retrials, calling into question the reliability of the justice system (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2020). The irrevocability of the death penalty renders it a perilous form of punishment in a flawed justice system.

The legal implications of capital punishment also reveal unsettling truths about systemic biases. Studies indicate that race, socioeconomic status, and geography greatly influence who receives the death penalty. For instance, a study revealed that defendants convicted of killing white victims were significantly more likely to receive the death penalty than those convicted of killing Black victims (Paternoster, 2014). This highlights the disparities in the application of capital punishment, revealing a justice system riddled with prejudices.

Moreover, the financial burden of maintaining the death penalty is significant. Numerous studies have concluded that death penalty cases are far more expensive than life imprisonment. A comprehensive study in California revealed that the death penalty costs the state approximately $137 million annually, significantly more than life imprisonment (Santa Clara County Grand Jury, 2011). These costs come from lengthy trial processes, appeals, and housing death row inmates, which could be allocated to more effective crime prevention strategies or restorative justice programs.

Given its ineffectiveness as a deterrent, ethical dilemmas, systemic biases, and financial burdens, it becomes clear that the death penalty is not a viable solution to crime in contemporary society. Instead of serving as a deterrent, it perpetuates a cycle of violence and retribution, which counters the foundational aims of a just legal system. Alternatives such as restorative justice programs and life imprisonment without parole could ensure public safety without the moral and ethical implications of taking a life.

In conclusion, the death penalty is not only ineffective in deterring crime but also poses significant ethical, legal, and financial concerns. The state-sanctioned taking of life undermines the very values of justice and humanity that it purports to uphold. As society stands at a crossroads concerning this practice, it must reconsider its position on capital punishment and seek more humane and equitable forms of justice.

References

• Bowers, W. J., & Pierce, G. L. (2011). Deterrence or Brutalization: What Is the Effect of Executions on Homicides? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.
• Radelet, M. L., & Akers, R. L. (1996). Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Critical Review of the Literature. Innocents in Prison.
• Nagin, D. S., & Pepper, J. V. (2012). Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Evidence Is In. National Academy of Sciences.
• Camus, A. (1957). Reflections on the Guillotine. Vintage.
• Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2020). Conviction of Innocents. Department of Justice.
• Paternoster, R. (2014). Race of Victim and Death Penalty Sentencing in South Carolina. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology.
• Santa Clara County Grand Jury. (2011). The Cost of the Death Penalty in California.
• National Research Council. (2012). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. National Academies Press.
• Future of Working. (2019). Advantages and Disadvantages of the Death Penalty.
• Death Penalty Information Center. (2019). History of the Death Penalty.