The death penalty has been an imprescriptible regulation in American society for decades. This regulation was regarded as an important deterrent to severe crimes, and a means of protecting the community from dangerous individuals. However, the spread of humanistic ideas led to questioning the very right of the government to put an individual to death. Whereas nowadays, in the majority of the world countries, the death penalty is abolished, in the United States the debate around it is heated, and in some states death penalty is preserved as an option in the legal system. In Wisconsin, one of the first states in America to abolish capital punishment, the argument around allowing the death penalty has reassumed in the 2000s. In 2006, the majority of the state population approved the death penalty during an advisory referendum. Although it did not cause any changes in the state legislative system, the importance of the death penalty was confirmed by common citizens of the state who were concerned with safety issues. This paper seeks to prove that the death penalty is an inalienable regulation both in human society in general, and in Wisconsin in particular, aiming to control dangerous criminals in society, and, thus, protect the interest of common citizens.
Looking back on the history of capital punishment in Wisconsin, it appears that this state became one of the first states in the country where the death penalty was abolished. This occurred in 1853 (Choe, 2010). Nowadays, the debate around the death penalty in Wisconsin has become burning again. In 2006, around 56% of voters in the state approved the death penalty proposal (“Wisconsin Policy”, 1995). However, it did not lead to changes in the legislation on the reason of objections to the new death penalty law project on the part of influential politicians.
Still, the general public in Wisconsin is concerned about the reason for the ever-growing level of crime including crime that threats the lives of common citizens (Stack, 2004). People express their opinion by saying that criminals will continue their dangerous course unless they are stopped by strict legislative regulations, and capital punishment is such a regulation. In addition, common citizens analyze the examples from the other countries of the world where death punishment is currently allowed and the examples from the past. The statistics show that the level of dangerous crime is much less in the territories where capital punishment is allowed.
One more argument proving that the death penalty is important both for Wisconsin society and for human society is in the state of affairs in the world existing nowadays (Murray, 2003). From day to day we hear about terrorists who kill and severely wound dozens of people, and at the end of the day, their punishment for this is twenty to thirty years. In addition, such criminals may be let out of prison earlier as a result of amnesty for exemplary conduct. The resonant example of such a terrible crime is the shooting in Oslo on 22 July 2011 (Mala, E., & Goodman, 2011). Recently, the terrorist guilty of the death of 80 civilians were sentenced to 21 years of imprisonment which meant that he would be freed at the age of around 50. Thus, such a dangerous man can commit similar crimes again.
In conclusion, capital punishment is an important regulation that should be adopted to control the level of dangerous crime because common citizens in every land including Wisconsin need protection.
References
Choe, J. (2010). ANOTHER LOOK AT THE DETERRENT EFFECT OF DEATH PENALTY. Journal Of Advanced Research In Law & Economics, 1(1), 12-15.
done in as little as 1 hour
Mala, E., & Goodman, D. (2011). At Least 80 Dead in Norway Shooting. Web.
Murray, G. R. (2003). Raising Considerations: Public Opinion and the Fair Application of the Death Penalty. Social Science Quarterly, 84(4), 753-770.
Stack, S. (2004). PUBLIC OPINION ON THE DEATH PENALTY: ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL DATA FROM 17 NATIONS. International Criminal Justice Review (Georgia State University), 1469-98.
Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. (1995). Human Events, 51(39), 18.
according to your instructions