Can someone read this over for me?

[Tutt221]

I know it is a bit rough, but can someone just read it over and offer any advice/corrections?

The death penalty deters crime, is appropriate retribution, maximizes public safety, is more humane than life imprisonment and is the only proportionate punishment. Therefore the capital punishment should be reinstated in Canada for use on pre-conceived murderers.
Deterrence, a leading argument in favour of the death penalty is a main proponent behind reinstating capital punishment for planned murders. The logic is simple enough, the tougher the punishment the more someone does not want to suffer that punishment. So if the penalty is death instead of 20 years more of life, criminals are more likely to think twice about the murder they are going to commit. What is to stop a criminal who’s already serving a life sentence from killing again, when all that’s at stake is another life sentence? Nothing. The death penalty also provides deterrence through example. Which basically is what it is. An example of what happens to those who defy the justice system. Take for example what happens if a death row inmate attempts to commit suicide. They are treated medically and nursed back to healthy only to be executed a few days later as an example too all. Capital punishment is needed in Canada to act as a deterrence to all future murderers.
Capital punishment is the only punishment that provides proper retribution for the family and the victim. Often it is the only way to heal the wounds of a grieving family and to exact retribution for the innocent loss of life. Not because of the pain inflicted on the offender (there often is none or less then rotting in jail) but because it gives them the comfort that the offender can never harm anymore innocent people. It also gives them relief too know that the perpetrator can not enjoy the wonders of life after having stolen them from another. Some may say that all human lives are equal but this is just not true. Anyone who plans and acts on the murder of an innocent civilian is not entitled to the gift of life themselves. Another reason why Canada should reinstate the death penalty for preconceived murders.
Locking up a known for a “life sentence” does not prevent him from killing again. He could escape, be freed, received parole, or even kill in prison. Many inmates receive parole for “good behaviour” after serving just 10 or so years of their sentence and what is to stop those people from killing again when they obviously see nothing wrong with it. Once a murderer always a murderer. Another scenario is that, say they don’t receive parole or escape, what is to stop an inmate from killing within the prison. When a criminal is already serving a life sentence what is to deter him from killing an inmate or guard? Another life sentence? To maximize the security of the public, other prisoners and prison guards. The death penalty should be brought back to Canada for planned murders.
The fourth reason behind re-establishing capital punishment in Canada is that the death penalty is in fact just as humane as life imprisonment. Because the death penalty is all about retribution and deterrence; not vengeance and pain, another reason to bring it back is the fact that it is just as humane, if not more. The death penalty is quick and painless and although some will argue it is cruel and unusual punishment, it is neither. First off it is more cruel to slowly let someone rot away against there will as it is to kill them. Especially when the reason for killing them is for the good of the public. Secondly it is not unusual. The Founding Fathers who adopted the Bill of Rights that bans "cruel and unusual punishment" had no problem with implementing the death penalty. The death penalty has been a common punishment for murder and other heinous crimes throughout history, it is more unusual not to have it. Therefore another reason to implant capital punishment again in Canada is because it is more humane and less unusual.
The final reason to re-instate the death penalty in Canada for pre-conceived murders is that it is the only proportionate punishment. It is the only punishment that comes close to fitting the crime. To be honest there is no punishment that comes close to being proportionate to the crime of murdering someone, because in the end the murderer always gets what they want. The murderer wanted to kill the victim and they got that, the victim only wanted to live and never again will they get that.By killing the offender you are at least somewhat balancing the actions that have taken place. It’s a form of karma. The sad thing is that murderer always wins because they are selfish. They could have chosen not to kill. Therefore the final reason to re-instate capital punishment in Canada for pre-conceived murders is because it is the only proportionate punishment.
Murder is a gruesome act that can never be justified. It can only be reprimanded and deterred. There are many anti-death penalty advocates out there who would say its morally wrong, cruel and unusual and is more expensive. But since when is not justly punishing someone morally right? Or letting them rot away in a cell not cruel? And since when did justice come down to the lowest bidder? The death penalty deters crime, is appropriate retribution, maximizes safety, is more humane than life imprisonment and is the only proportionate punishment. Therefore the capital punishment must be reinstated in Canada for use on pre-conceived murderers.

[Donnie]

Tutt221 said:

I know it is a bit rough, but can someone just read it over and offer any advice/corrections?

Some of my comments are about words that will slip through a spell-check. What is the overall goal here?

The death penalty deters crime

"murder" would be more appropriate here

is appropriate retribution, maximizes public safety, is more humane than life imprisonment and is the only proportionate punishment.

proportionate for what? every murder, second murder after lesser punishment for first murder, torture murder, serial murder, mass murder, rape murder?

Deterrence, a leading argument in favour of the death penalty is a main proponent

"impetus" or a synonym would be better here

behind reinstating capital punishment for planned murders. The logic is simple enough, the tougher the punishment the more someone does not want to suffer that punishment. So if the penalty is death instead of 20 years more of life, criminals are more likely to think twice about the murder they are going to commit. What is to stop a criminal who’s already serving a life sentence from killing again, when all that’s at stake is another life sentence? Nothing. The death penalty also provides deterrence through example. Which basically is what it is. An example of what happens to those who defy the justice system. Take for example what happens if a death row inmate attempts to commit suicide. They are treated medically and nursed back to healthy

health

only to be executed a few days later as an example too

to

all. Capital punishment is needed in Canada to act as a deterrence

deterrent

to all future murderers.
Capital punishment is the only punishment that provides proper retribution for the family and the victim. Often it is the only way to

suggest that you add "allow for" here, the execution of a murderer cannot do any healing, but it sometimes clears away an impediment for the victim's survivors

heal the wounds of a grieving family and to exact retribution for the innocent loss of life. Not because of the pain inflicted on the offender (there often is none or less then rotting in jail)

over used and inaccurate cliche. Nobody in Canada or the US is "rotting in jail"

but because it gives them the comfort that the offender can never harm anymore

two words: "any more"

innocent people. It also gives them relief too

to

know that the perpetrator can not enjoy the wonders of life after having stolen them from another. Some may say that all human lives are equal but this is just not true.

the victim is dead, when the murderer is kept alive are the lives of the murderer and the victim being considered equal?

Locking up a known

"known murderer"?

for a “life sentence” does not prevent him from killing again. He could escape, be freed, received

receive

parole, or even kill in prison. Many inmates receive parole for “good behaviour” after serving just 10 or so years of their sentence and what is to stop those people from killing again when they obviously see nothing wrong with it.

run-on sentence; a statement and a question spliced together with "and"

Once a murderer always a murderer. Another scenario is that, say they don’t receive parole or escape, what is to stop an inmate from killing within the prison. When a criminal is already serving a life sentence what is to deter him from killing an inmate or guard? Another life sentence? To maximize the security of the public, other prisoners and prison guards.

Don't forget other prison employees; such as nurses, maintenance workers and teachers

The death penalty is quick and painless and although some will argue it is cruel and unusual punishment, it is neither.

Everybody dies. How does execution compare to death from cancer or other diseases. How does the suffering of the victim compare to the suffering of the murderer?

First off it is more cruel to slowly let someone rot away against there will as it is to kill them.

"their will" What evidence do you have that they rot?

The Founding Fathers who adopted the Bill of Rights that bans "cruel and unusual punishment" had no problem with implementing the death penalty.

What does that have to do with Canada?

By killing the offender you are at least somewhat balancing the actions that have taken place. It’s a form of Reputation.

Bad reputation, no doubt. But I think you meant to use another word here.

[Deleted]

The death penalty deters crime, is appropriate retribution, maximizes public safety, is more humane than life imprisonment and is the only proportionate punishment. Therefore the capital punishment should be reinstated in Canada for use on pre-conceived murderers.

My Impression is that you are wanting to argue in favour of the return of the dp to Canda. You have made a few arguments that could be easily disagreed with. and hence you need to refer to evidence and no just your own opinion. You argue that the death penalty deters "crime" but yet you appear to only argue for it to be returned for "pre-conceived murder" which does not make alot of sense. Perhaps you need to reconstruct that sentence to say that it deters murders, otherwise a reader may expect you to argue for the death penalty for other crimes.

Deterrence, a leading argument in favour of the death penalty is a main proponent behind reinstating capital punishment for planned murders.

Who says that it is the leading argument. That is your opinion, you need to convince your reader. You see on this message board, most members are death penalty supporters, but they may not believe in deterrence. I do not see a need for you to rank your arguments. Also, I was under the impression that the word "proponent" referred to a person, try argument

The logic is simple enough, the tougher the punishment the more someone does not want to suffer that punishment. So if the penalty is death instead of 20 years more of life, criminals are more likely to think twice about the murder they are going to commit.

In fact, many murders are committed in the heat of the moment, or with little planning

What is to stop a criminal who’s already serving a life sentence from killing again, when all that’s at stake is another life sentence? Nothing.

I totally agree with this point, however i suggest you follow it up with some real life examples

The death penalty also provides deterrence through example. Which basically is what it is. An example of what happens to those who defy the justice system. Take for example what happens if a death row inmate attempts to commit suicide. They are treated medically and nursed back to healthy only to be executed a few days later as an example too all. Capital punishment is needed in Canada to act as a deterrence to all future murderers.

This does not make sense...

I believe deterrence refers to discouraging people from commiting an act by inflicting really nasty consequences on those who do commit that at. Your example about the ill death row inmate seems to be irrelevant...

Also I would suggest that you changes the word "future" in the sentence "Capital punishment is needed in Canada to act as a deterrence to all future murderers" to "potential"

Capital punishment is the only punishment that provides proper retribution for the family and the victim. Often it is the only way to heal the wounds of a grieving family and to exact retribution for the innocent loss of life.

This is a sentence that a reader can disagree with. How do you know this, there are many cases that this simply is not true

Not because of the pain inflicted on the offender (there often is none or less then rotting in jail) but because it gives them the comfort that the offender can never harm anymore innocent people.

Arguing about the pain of the offender is not the best way to go. ...something like this "The death penalty is not about inflicting pain on the inmate. It is about taking his life away from him"

It also gives them relief too know that the perpetrator can not enjoy the wonders of life after having stolen them from another.

NOt just the family of the victim, speak about the need for soceity at large to see justice.

Some may say that all human lives are equal but this is just not true. Anyone who plans and acts on the murder of an innocent civilian is not entitled to the gift of life themselves.

Why is your argument better then those who argue that all lives are equal? This is a statement without evidence

Another reason why Canada should reinstate the death penalty for preconceived murders.

Locking up a known for a “life sentence” does not prevent him from killing again. He could escape, be freed, received parole, or even kill in prison. Many inmates receive parole for “good behaviour” after serving just 10 or so years of their sentence and what is to stop those people from killing again when they obviously see nothing wrong with it.

Show real life examples of where this has happened. most murderers know what they did was wrong, and chose to do it anyway. Try :whats to stop murderers killing again when they know the price they pay is so small

Once a murderer always a murderer.

True, but most murderers only do it once.

Another scenario is that, say they don’t receive parole or escape, what is to stop an inmate from killing within the prison. When a criminal is already serving a life sentence what is to deter him from killing an inmate or guard?

or other people they may come into contact with in the prison system

Another life sentence? To maximize the security of the public, other prisoners and prison guards. The death penalty should be brought back to Canada for planned murders.

What is the difference between planned and unplanned murder

he fourth reason behind re-establishing capital punishment in Canada is that the death penalty is in fact just as humane as life imprisonment.

It protects life, it makes the statement that if you take a life, the only way you can pay for it is to forfiet your own

Because the death penalty is all about retribution and deterrence; not vengeance and pain, another reason to bring it back is the fact that it is just as humane, if not more.

Says who?

The death penalty is quick and painless and although some will argue it is cruel and unusual punishment, it is neither. First off it is more cruel to slowly let someone rot away against there will as it is to kill them.

Says who? Most death row inmates who spend years battling away in court will disagree with you

Especially when the reason for killing them is for the good of the public

.

Yes but it is good for the public....of Canada...that is the point of your essay to prove that the death penalty is good for the public

Secondly it is not unusual. The Founding Fathers who adopted the Bill of Rights that bans "cruel and unusual punishment" had no problem with implementing the death penalty. The death penalty has been a common punishment for murder and other heinous crimes throughout history, it is more unusual not to have it.

Most countries do not have the death penalty, so it is getting more unusual in the world...anyway you are in canada, so what have the founding fathers got to do with you

Therefore another reason to implant capital punishment again in Canada is because it is more humane and less unusual.

Sounds like you are repeating yourself

The final reason to re-instate the death penalty in Canada for pre-conceived murders is that it is the only proportionate punishment.

What about other types of murder?

It is the only punishment that comes close to fitting the crime. To be honest there is no punishment that comes close to being proportionate to the crime of murdering someone, because in the end the murderer always gets what they want.

I can think of the anti argument "we don't rape rapists etc etc" Why does it fit the crime? Why should it be treated differently from other crimes?

The murderer wanted to kill the victim and they got that, the victim only wanted to live and never again will they get that.By killing the offender you are at least somewhat balancing the actions that have taken place. It’s a form of Reputation.

? retribution


The sad thing is that murderer always wins because they are selfish. They could have chosen not to kill.

exactly

Murder is a gruesome act that can never be justified. It can only be reprimanded and deterred. There are many anti-death penalty advocates out there who would say its morally wrong, cruel and unusual and is more expensive. But since when is not justly punishing someone morally right? Or letting them rot away in a cell not cruel? And since when did justice come down to the lowest bidder? The death penalty deters crime, is appropriate retribution, maximizes safety, is more humane than life imprisonment and is the only proportionate punishment. Therefore the capital punishment must be reinstated in Canada for use on pre-conceived murderers.

This is a very well written this section. It is a little emotional though. Instead of asking questionsm you should spend some time critquing the antis arguments

eg....it is too expensive....since when do we put a price on justice

[Tutt221]

Thank you both for you comments and suggestions, I'll be sure to make the appropriate corrections and start adding some applicable evidence. It is just a small assignment for my grade 11 politics class, so if it was a bit rough and lacking evidence I apologize. Thanks again for the help.

[Deleted]

Do not apologise. One of the main objectives is to provide a forum for students to seek help with their assignements. As it is just a small assingment, you probably do not need much evidence

[chaz]

wow i liked it and it helped with my corse work Thanks !

[Karona]

Helped me on an assignment as well. I would like to say thank you very much.

[Californian]

I hate the phrase "first off." You mean "First of all...."

It's well-reasoned but, as some have said above, needs an edit and polish with their ideas incorporated.