Op-Ed for Portfolio-Lucbe

Say Goodbye To Execution

 

The death penalty needs to be abolished, and it can no longer be decided on the basis of it being considered “cruel and unusual punishment.” Recently, the governor of California has ruled in favor of abolishing the death penalty under that one excuse without factoring in the other issues. The need for prisoners to waste away in prison should be a must. Execution will only stop criminals from suffering earlier than what they should serve, based on the severity level of their crime. If the inmates find themselves on death row, they have either committed or been suspected of committing such a harsh crime that they deserve to be held there.

        By allowing death row prisoners to be killed quickly, the American government is shortening their deserved suffering while also making American citizens pay thousands of dollars to end one single person’s life at a time. The victims and their families will feel cheated because their perpetrator will not suffer for as long as they have. Keeping inmates locked up on death row or in the general public prison will force them to live in much more mental as well as possible physical pain than a quick death can allow. 

        The government cannot show other criminals that they take “an eye for an eye.” If the nation continues to use the death penalty, the criminals will see this as trying to get even with them. Quickly executing criminals will not generate a large enough scene to prevent others from committing those death row qualifying crimes the same way as allowing them to stay in a small metal cell for life will. 

        The United States Government is throwing innocent people on death row and preparing them for execution. According to California’s statistics, fifty of the seven hundred and thirty-seven inmates in their death row cells end up innocent. For death row prisoner, Rodney Reed’s case, the proper reciprocals of evidence were not taken when he was originally arrested. Reed has been on death row for more than twenty-two years for a crime that the state of Texas isn’t even completely certain he has committed. Unlike Reed, when many of the executed prisoners cases have been reopened, and the are found innocent, it is too late. Abolishing execution will eliminate the chances of making incorrect accusations that lead to the killing of an innocent person. 

        Although the death penalty may be considered “deserving” for some inmates, it is not for all. This style of dealing with prisoners needs to be put to an end. It is unfair to both the victims, their families, and their perpetrator because it ends their suffering too quickly. It would be much more humanistic and less problematic for the inmates to be thrown behind bars for the remaining years of their lives to induce great guilt and regret in their minds. Americans owe it to the victims and families of death row crimes to be able to see their violators behind bars to deteriorate.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Lucbe Portfolio, lucbe219, Op-ed for Portfolio. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Op-Ed for Portfolio-Lucbe

  1. davidbdale says:

    I have to make a structural note before I answer your questions, Lucbe.
    We don’t do footnotes in an Op-Ed.
    Read any Op-Ed in the paper and you’ll see the notes are built in to the structure of the essay by links to the source and usually a casual citation such as, “The recent US News and World Report poll indicates the problem.”

    The death penalty needs to be abolished, and it can no longer be decided on the basis of it being considered “cruel and unusual punishment.”
    —Since you asked about sentence flow, I’d advise you to get rid of ALL pronouns with unclear antecedents. Your first sentence contains two ITs that can’t possibly refer to the same thing.

    Recently, the governor of California has ruled in favor of abolishing the death penalty under that one excuse without factoring in the other issues.
    —A better flow would get rid of one of the references to the excuse.
    —A better flow would name other issues FIRST before referring to them as “the other issues.”

    The need for prisoners to waste away in prison should be a must.
    —You’re working two arguments without distinguishing them clearly, Lucbe. 1) We need to treat capital criminals severely. 2) We need to use certain arguments and not others to abolish the death penalty.
    —Your first two sentences apply to 1. Your third sentence shifts unexpectedly to 2.

    Execution will only stop criminals from suffering earlier than what they should serve, based on the severity level of their crime.
    —That is a very roundabout way to say that execution is a favor that capital murderers don’t deserve.

    If the inmates find themselves on death row, they have either committed or been suspected of committing such a harsh crime that they deserve to be held there.
    —Rhetorically strange. The notion of “finding themselves” on death row is a real distraction that makes it sound VERY MUCH as if they don’t belong there. You follow that up with another such hint, that they’ve just “been suspected” of a capital crime.
    —You’ll invite WAY too much opposition if you suggest we should imprison suspects for the rest of their lives whose guilt has not been proven.

    To avoid sounding vindictive and deliberately cruel, you’ll need to be even-handed and reasonable, Lucbe. I think you can do so while still promoting a lifetime of retribution for heinous crimes.

    The death penalty is a favor to capital murderers and an insult to their victims. Convicted murderers whose crimes are heinous enough to warrant execution should spend the rest of their natural lives atoning for abbreviating the lives of their victims. The families and friends of their victims deserve that measure of justice. The governor of California recently ruled to abolish the death penalty on the basis that it is “cruel and unusual punishment,” but he has the logic backwards. Capital punishment is cruel to the survivors and a blessing to the condemned. Yes, we need to abolish the death penalty, but only so murderers are compelled to complete their sentences alive.

    Speak as plainly and directly as possible, Lucbe. And be sure that every sentence makes one clear claim that can’t be misunderstood.

    Helpful?

    Like

  2. davidbdale says:

    Of course, Lucbe. I’ll be happy to help.
    Give this a title, please. I’ll come back to help you when you do.

    Like

  3. lucbe219 says:

    Hello Professor, I am requesting feedback mainly to see if my argument makes better sense and is easier to understand. Also, I would like help perfecting my sentences so that they flow and support my argument better. Thank you

    Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s