If you have a suggestion about this website or are experiencing a problem with it, or if you need to report abuse on the site, please let us know. We try to make TeenInk. Please note that while we value your input, we cannot respond to every message.
Also, if you have a comment about a particular piece of work on this website, please go to the page where that work is displayed and post a comment on it. Don't have an account? Sign up for one. Wrong email address or password! Summer Program Reviews College Reviews. Writers Workshop Regular Forums. Program Links Program Reviews. Persuasive Speech The Death Penalty: Persuasive Speech April 10, More by this author Follow emmaclaire. I have also made up a power point presentation about the death penalty, which I would add to the article, but I'm not sure how, so I like this 0.
What About our Jobs? Still Hoping for Change. A Conquest for Revenge. This article has 11 comments. Email me when someone replies. I am currently doing my own essay on this subject, and was wondering when your essay was published? I couldn't agree more. If they did something like that They deserve it! I think the death penalty is a justified punishment. When a criminal does wrong they realize their doing wrong and a few years in prison won't make them feel remorse , if anything they may look to harm more people if they somehow leave.
There's no reason to fill prisons with this type of filth. They don't deserve to live , are a waste of space on this planet and should pay for what they took another's life. I completely believe in the saying "an eye for an eye" so here "a life for a life".
There no need to kill them let them stay in prison for life instead of ending someone life give them a chance to live and realize they are wrong and let them understand that they are responsible for what they did and now they have to spend time in prison for what they did! I do not like this speech.
We can preserve the quality of life by getting rid of those who try to crack it in half. So don't say this all over the place because you will find strongly opinionated people who will find holes and will be upset to see you try to xcover them up with eoither little girl makeup or a few wise words of the Oxford Dictionary. Thankyou and goodluck, Anon. Her conclusion is that one execution helps to avert three killings on average. Capital punishment also has an effect on murders by intimates and crimes of passion.
The influence is evidenced by rates of crimes committed by victims of both European and Afro-American descent. The deterring effect of death penalty, however, was found to be reduced by longer waits on the death row. The paper, in evaluating the deterrent effect of capital punishment, adjusts the data for the influence of simultaneity and therefore comes up with estimates of a deterrent effect that greatly those of previous findings.
Besides, he has established that it is the announcement of death penalty that drives the effect. The above-mentioned findings suggest that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is present and should not be neglected.
If the killing of one criminal can prevent at least three, or fourteen deaths, by different calculations, this opportunity has to be exploited. We cannot forgo an opportunity to save the lives of honest, innocent, law-abiding citizens.
Although any human life is precious, the efforts of the society have always been directed mostly at maintaining the well-being of those who live by its rules. They are getting more economic benefits that anti-social elements and can enjoy a more secure future. Thus, these people have to be protected by the law in the first place. Evidence of repeat offenders returning to normal life is scarce, and instances of recidivism are abundant. Once again, the solution depends on the main goal set for the legal system: If we side with those who believe that the system should in the first place support those who are law-abiding, the focus will be on prevention of deaths though murders as the greatest evil generated by crime.
Despite the above-mentioned deterrent effect, we cannot effectively prevent crimes by first-time offenders. It is much easier to prevent those by repeat offenders. One of the most outrageous instances supporting the above claim was the incident that happened in Alabama prison in Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, 25, an inmate who was serving life without parole for 3 murders was found guilty of killing a fellow inmate Recidivism. The killer was finally sentenced to electrocution. However, if he had been sentenced to death right after the first murder, the other three could have been prevented.
The life of an inmate who died at the hands of Peraita is no less valuable than his own. In fact, I strongly believe that it could have been more valuable: Maybe that person was not guilty of such a heinous crime as murder?
Unfortunately, there is too much evidence that certain individuals tend to commit murder while others are less prone to it.
Death penalty would then free society from the return of such individuals. Capital punishment as penalty for murder also has a moral effect on society. It signals to the criminals that murder is a serious crime the community feels strongly about. In fact, it creates the useful perception of human life as something so precious that taking it has no justification.
Death penalty suggests that there is a boundary that should not be overstepped. This should send a message to society members that taking a person's property, however reprehensible, is not to be condemned via taking a life.
On the contrary, murder will not be tolerated, and people who have committed this crime should be removed from society as incapable of social living. Another common argument given in favour of death penalty is an economical consideration. Comparisons differ depending on the bias of the people carrying out the comparison.
However, these extra expenses have to be diminished through increasing the cost-efficiency of the legal system, and society that is spending huge amounts on legal services would benefit from such a reform.
Just considering the cost of keeping a year-old inmate incarcerated till the end of one's life is startling and endorses the view that society has to select death penalty as a cheaper option. Opponents of death penalty have given a number of arguments to support their position. In the first place, it is opposed by people on religious grounds. Representatives of various religious groups claim that only God can take a human life and human being are then not sanctioned to kill each other.
However, in the Hebrew Scriptures there is evidence that Jews applied death penalty to criminals for selected types of crime. The couple was killed for lying about the size of the proceeds from the sale of a house in an effort to conceal part of their income. Proceeding to the Christian Scriptures, one finds some evidence that was said to be indicative of Christ's opposition to death penalty questionable.
Thus, there is a renowned episode with the female sinner John 8: Jesus was not in fact censuring the right to kill the woman according to the ancient law.
Besides, there is evidence suggesting that this passage was not present in the original version of the Scripture and was later added by an unknown person Religious Tolerance. Besides, the passage from Matthew 5: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment Thus, Christian intolerance of death penalty appears doubtful.
To negate death first of all would mean the moratorium on wars that take lives of more people than death penalty. The war casualties are often innocent peaceful people who just happened to be caught in the cross-fire, unlike recidivist criminals who end up on death row.
Yet most Christian states prepare military doctrines and demonstrate to each other readiness to employ their military machine to kill people if necessary.
Still others are practicing war if it suits their political goals. How significantly will then abolition of death penalty forward the goal of living a Christian life? The same argument applies to the anti-death penalty claim that the legal system should not be allowed to execute because there is a possibility of a legal mistake that will result in the death of a wrong person NCWC. On these grounds, wars have to be forbidden in the first place since they keep killing people that are not to blame at all.
They either do their best fighting for their motherland in expectation of a heroic death or just, as mentioned before, get caught in cross-fire. Thus, any nation that does not exclude a war should not exclude death penalty that is a much more balanced mechanism. Besides, the legal system is unfortunately prone to mistakes, as are all social institutions, but this does not mean that they should not be used to carry out their functions.
Most other penalties like imprisonment take a heavy toll on human life, yet they are applied to criminals, even if there is a threat of ruining a person's life by mistake. Besides, returning to the incident in Alabama in the previous section, a person dying at the hands of an acknowledged murderer in prison is also a fatal mistake of the legal system.
If the system rightfully recognized the capacity to continue killing in the criminal, his final victim would have saved his life. First, it is still preserved in many nations including the US that fits into many criteria of a civilized country. Besides, quite a few nations that have it in their penal codes like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Barbado, Bangladesh enjoy a relatively low crime rate.
This underscores that death penalty adequately serves the main purpose of the legal system: There are many more issues that can be considered with regard to death penalty.
One can evaluate the racist argument, for instance, claiming that death penalty is more often imposed on Afro-Americans than European Americans and see how it relates to crime rate in the two groups. Besides, ethical perspectives on this issue can be diverse and supported by many different theories.
With the arguments presented above, however, it seems clear that there are many valid reasons in support of death penalty. On the contrary, anti-death penalty arguments need to be assessed critically, as, for instance, the religious argument.
Persuasive Speech Outline on Death Penalty Type of paper: Speeches Subject: Society & Family Words: If you are looking for a persuasive and controversial topic for your speech, the death penalty is the exact one you need.
View Notes - persuasive speech outline from CJ at University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire. Topic: Specific Purpose: Death Penalty To persuade against the capital punishment Intro: If %(14).
This assignment instructed students to write a persuasive essay which argues for a specific viewpoint or a specific action to be taken on a societal issue. I argued for a specific stance to be taken on the issue of the death penalty. The audience for this essay is the opinion section of the. persuasive papers, north las argumentative essay outline for torture being argumentarius argumentative essay outline for torture being acceptable matagami essay on a day springfield essays on capital punishment writing research papers oakland free death penalty.
Persuasive Outline On Capital Punishment. persuasive outline on capital punishment Just like your Informative Speech, a Persuasive Speech, an Introduction consists of: 1. “The Death penalty goes against the bill of rights The Death Penalty: Persuasive Speech. More by this author. Garrick a persuasive outline capital punishment pros and persuasive outline capital punishment research paper topics. Find a persuasive essay crawler - homework help you, essay persuasive essay student checklist for placement test in which will find an essay memes.