SUB CLAIM 2: A LIFE FOR A LIFE

Some people may agree with the saying “What goes around comes around.” Meaning, the consequences of one’s actions will have to be dealt with eventually. This can be applied to the death penalty. You kill an innocent person, take away their life, your life gets taken away also. In an American study the question “Why do you favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder?”

Featured image

Out of sixteen options that were given, the statistics above show that an eye for an eye/they took a life, was the highest voted answer. The statistics show in 1991 the percentage for this answer was 50% although when asked again in 2014 the percentage for this answer was dropped to 35%. Yet that answer was still the highest voted. Another poll taken back in 2004 by one news network showed; out of 1,000 New Zealanders, only 28% were in favor of the penalty against 67% who did not want the penalty resumed. I believe it is time for New Zealander’s to follow in America’s footsteps and look at the death penalty with a new state of mind. If the death penalty was produced to the nation with valid argumentative claims then maybe the nation will give the reintroduction of this law a second thought.

In 2007, when Helen Clarke fought in Parliament to work with other countries to put a resolution to the United Nations seeking the abolition of the death penalty worldwide. She stated “Capital punishment is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the death penalty violates the right to life…it is known to have been inflicted on the innocent.” The Sensible sentencing Trust’s spokesman Garth McVicar fought against Helen Clarke and said “While there are no calls yet to re-introduce the death penalty in New Zealand, this is simply another example of putting offenders’ rights before those of victims.” Garth McVicar also said he is shocked when seeing victims who have had loved ones murdered. There is no worse form of treatment than that. This argument happened 7 years ago and to this day Garth McVicar still holds a valid point. It is as if we are putting offenders rights before those who have been killed and it is extremely unfair.

I have not found a recent poll taken for NZ in the last two years. It is time to take a new vote for the reintroduction of the death penalty. People’s opinions may be changed to being in favor of the penalty this time, as murder criminals have been let out of prison on parole and taken another life for the second time. Or when mass murderers attack killing over 4 people at one time. But again as I have said many times before, they still get to live and breathe after they have taken one or many lives.

Image result for pro death penalty

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “SUB CLAIM 2: A LIFE FOR A LIFE

  1. Its ok to say this. I think you worked hard to find evedent to support ur cliam. However, maybe you should talk more about NZ cases because your topic is concerned to NZ law…

    Like

  2. Laine, you have a lot of information which is good, I feel like the more information you put in the more I understand about the laws around the death penalty and am able to form my own opinions. However, sometimes it is unclear what side you support. just make sure you use persuasive wording to ensure the readers know your opinion to support your ideas. Also, I like your use of image.

    Like

  3. Hey again, After rereading your post I have noticed you have made it more clear to which side you stand for, however, you could still maybe change the sentence ‘Possibly it is time for New Zealander’s to follow’ to ‘I Believe it is time for New Zealander’s to follow’ or “I think’. Also the sentence ‘loved ones murdered, and there is no’ has an extra sneaky and that shouldn’t be there. You could also use how police will shoot and kill any person who is threatening their or an others safety, how is this different form someone who killed someone. Finally, perhaps move your graph to the side so its not interrupting your sentence.

    Like

  4. Hi there,
    I like the quote you used at the start as it goes very well with your claim. I also like how you used statistics from other countries to show how NZ should reconsider their laws prohibiting the death penalty since America has a more open mind approach towards it.
    “is as if we are putting offenders rights before those who have been killed and it is extremely unfair”, a valid point as this made me think twice about my thoughts towards the death penalty. You could maybe use statistics/evidence that show the post traumatic stress that the families of the victims go through so that it shows how unfair legalizing it really is.
    Other than that, you are on the right track with your research. Keep it up ! 🙂

    Like

  5. The evidence you’ve used really helps to back up your claim. I like how you used statistics from America and NZ. It shows that it’s a relevant issue in more then just NZ. I’m still unsure where I stand on this issue. It’s hard because isn’t killing, in any context, killing ? Why should we be allowed to decide if someone lives or dies. It’s true that the murderer killed someone and made the choice for another but wouldn’t we be considered just as bad if we allowed the death penalty ? I do get where you’re coming from and I’m still in the middle.
    Good blog. Keep it up (:

    Like

  6. Pingback: Comments | EUTHANASIA

  7. Pingback: Comments | tocancelcigarettes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s