Persuasive Speech On Death Penalty

Every year, hundreds of people get convicted wrongly as a result of criminal proceedings that are rooted in miscarriage of justice. The defendants are convicted for crimes not committed where errors are not proven until their death or having served a lot of jail time. Wrongful convictions are fueled by false witnesses, incompetence of defense lawyers and inadequate evidence among others. However, with the emergence of forensic DNA in collection of evidence, the rate of wrongful convictions has decreased in the past few years. This paper focuses on the fallibilities that lead to miscarriage of justice and what role technology has played in correcting and mitigating the previously erroneous judicial system.

The debate on whether or not the death penalty should be abolished has been ongoing for quite a long period of time. While there are those who believe that the death penalty does not serve its intended purpose, proponents of the same are convinced that the relevance of the same cannot be overstated and hence it should not be abolished. In this text, I examine the arguments for and against the death penalty.

Well, in nearly 25 years since post-conviction DNA evidence has been used to demonstrate criminal innocence, even in cases that landed defendants on death row or in prison for life. Eyewitness misidentification, forensic science errors, false confessions, government misconduct and bad lawyering are many of the reasons wrongful convictions occur. Eyewitness being the most common. Sometimes it can be done by error and other times it is actually done intentionally. In seventy-seven percent of the DNA exonerations, eyewitness misidentification led to wrongful convictions (The Innocence Project- How wrongful conviction happen).

Capital Punishment is the lawful infliction of death and has been used in Britain since the 5the century. It was not until 1964 that capital punishment was abolished and this has been described by many historians as Britain's worst decision in over 500 years.

In addition to undeserved charges, DNA testing has exonerated hundreds of people for crimes in which they were convicted over the past few years. When DNA testing became readily available to the criminal justice system, crucial flaws began to surface. It was realized that people were serving hard-time for felony crimes they didn’t commit.

Wrongful Canada(Wrongful Convictions) A wrongful conviction is when somebody is accused and convicted of a crime in which they didn’t commit. There have been many cases of people being wrongfully convicted and having to spend years in jail before they finally be released, and sometimes not. There have been cases where people have been wrongfully convicted, spent their whole life in jail and eventually receive the death penalty and get killed for a crime that they didn’t commit.

Hello, everyone. My name is Devlin O’Connell and I am going to be speaking to you today about why I believe the death penalty should be abolished. There are three factors that I base this argument off which surround ethics, efficiency, and expenditure.

More than two centuries ago, the death penalty was commonplace in the United States, but today it is becoming increasingly rare. In the article “Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?”, Diann Rust-Tierney argues that it should be abolished, and Joshua Marquis argues that it should not be abolished. Although the death penalty is prone to error and discrimination, the death penalty should not be abolished because several studies show that the death penalty has a clear deterrent effect, and we need capital punishment for those certain cases in which a killer is beyond redemption.

After reading a number of articles, and attending the “Picking Cotton” lecture. I have come to the conclusion that, without the breakthrough of DNA extraction technology. Many people would still be convicted of a crime they never committed.

There have been many incidents where cases have needed a solid prosecution in order to convict the defendant in a murder or rape case. This is where DNA Testing comes in to help. By taking a DNA test, a person can be found guilty or not guilty. If a person claims they have been raped there can be a sperm sample taken from the suspect in order to prove that he is guilty or not. In addition, in a murder case there can be blood taken from the suspect so they can tell of his innocence. There are several ways to determine whether a person is guilty or not by this method. Many cases have begun to use this method saying that it is foolproof. People say this is the method of the future of crime

DNA evidence is extremely helpful in criminal trials not only because it can determine the guilt of a suspect, but also because it can keep innocent people from going to jail. The suspect must leave a sample of their DNA at the crime scene in order for testing to occur, but DNA can be found in the form of many things such as semen, blood, hair, saliva, or skin scrapings. According to Newsweek, "thousands of people have been convicted by DNA's nearly miraculous ability to search out suspects across space and time… hundreds of innocent people have also been freed, often after years behind bars, sometimes just short of the death chamber" (Adler ). Though some may think it is a waste of time to go

In the world of forensic science, exoneration holds a very crucial role. In cases where a person has been convicted of a crime and needs to be proven innocent, exoneration plays a key part. It is what helps the court to decide in a just manner whether the crime was committed by that person or not. Exoneration is based on DNA evidence and therefore, is the most authentic. The main purpose of exoneration is to help the legal system by allowing innocent people to be discharged of guilty verdicts. Majority of the legal systems are built on such structures that the people responsible for crimes can be identified and penalized. Exoneration removes the burden, charge or responsibility which is being

II. Second Main Point: The excessive cost of execution is also a reason for the death penalty to be abolished. To keep a man in prison for one 's whole life cost less than executing him. A state would save millions of dollars if they did away with death row and executions.

There are often mistakes made that falsely determine an individual’s sentence. Sloppy police work and loss of documents are examples of careless errors. There is also some room for error with determining the results of a DNA sample that do not fall under the human error category. Many times there may not be ample DNA samples at a crime scene. Only a fraction of crimes reveal DNA. Drive-by shootings and bombings often do not provide DNA for investigation purposes. “There is a public perception that DNA is the cure-all for these kinds of mistakes. DNA is not the whole answer.” (Dieter, Richard) Eye witnesses cannot solely and accurately determine a person’s fate 100 percent of the time. There are numerous amounts of cases in which those found guilty were indeed later found innocent. Many times, these individuals have already served time in jail. Many argue that the time inmates spend in

A historical moment in United States history was shortly after the “so called,” “Boston Massacre. Many British soldiers were being accused of murder; but one Patriot, John Adams, who would one day become our second President, asserted that everyone deserves a fair trial. There was no killing. Only trials, observation, and questions. Our country states that everyone deserves the right to a trial, and not automatic death. The theory of capital punishment, or as most of you call it, the death penalty, is a violent way to sort out the criminals of an event. Capital punishment is a serious issue, and most of United States is on it. In fact, it is on the 2016 Presidential ballot, whether it should remain or be abolished. To inform people, capital punishment is a government practice where a person is put to death for a crime they committed. These capital offences are of serious issue, but should it really determine whether a person is allowed to live? No! I am an opponent for the death penalty being used anywhere in the world.