Death Penalty Viewpoint There Are Contradictory Viewpoints

Death Penalty Viewpoint There are contradictory viewpoints concerning the death penalty with some viewing it as needed for family closure in capital cases and others viewing it as an excuse where closure is not clearly defined in the arguments. There are also questions of whether the death penalty actually restores communities and families, whether it really serves justice, or whether it is actually a revenge for families and society.

The similarity and differences in the viewpoints bring out points of victim complexity, clarity in the word meanings, and how families can be tortured in the probation hearings when offenders request probation review. (Bandes, Susan) argues that there is no clear definition of closure or the justice system rights to obtain closure in arguments. She claims that some families have found closure if an offender takes responsibility for the crimes committed, but feels the justice system uses closure as an excuse to seek the death penalty.

She claims the death penalty has no empirical grounding and, with victim needs being complex, closure does not match how people really feel. On the other hand, (Stambaugh, Irl and Stambaugh, Gary) argue that families are tortured in the probation review process for years and the death penalty is necessary to eliminate the suffering the process brings to families. The authors had a sister who had been raped and murdered as well as her roommate being raped and tortured.

The judge sentenced the offender to life in prison and stated it would be injustice to society to be allowed probation where the court had determined the offender was beyond rehabilitation. The offender had a consistent past of sexual assault on numerous victims, as well as stating a temptation of big breasted women in the review process. The offender had numerous probation review requests the family attended. And, the family lived in fear for 37 years that the offender would be released to commit more harm to others.

They feel that if the death penalty had been allowed, the family would not have suffered for that long. Both viewpoints are seeking justice. Bandes' argument is seeking clearer definitions of closure and the actual rights of the justice system in how that closure gets handled. Stambaugh and Stambaugh are seeking justice in closure of the torture the system inflicts on families if violent criminals are not put to death. The viewpoints are different in respects of the sides they argue for and the points they bring out.

Bandes' argument is for the rights of the system in how capital cases are handled and for clearer cut definitions to clarify the meaning of closure. She claims the death penalty should not be automatically sought for by prosecutors based on the idea of family closure. Stambaugh and Stambaugh argue for how the families get treated in the processes and the torture processes inflict on them. They argue that the death penalty should be allowed for violent offenders where families do not suffer more in the probation review processes.

The death penalty should be sought after based on the history of the offender and whether rehabilitation is rendered as a way for the offender to change for the better. If an offender has a violent history, such as continued sexual assault or violence toward society, the death penalty should be sought after. A continued.