Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment - Essay Example However, it is disputed because of mistakes made in sentencing that are claimed to be rare. The death sentence is given when there exists conclusive evidence on the guilt of a suspect (Smith). The evidence is usually in the form of DNA, and a plus for the death row inmates is that there is a chance to appeal the decisions to sentence them to death. Therefore, it is argued that any person convicted to death stands a chance to prove their case and plead their innocence allowing them to live. In this case, the claim is that it is extremely difficult to sentence an innocent person to death owing to the numerous appeal opportunities accorded to them. In addition, the presence of DNA testing helps to exonerate many, although not entirely. Therefore, the DNA of the convicted may lead to conviction of many due to wrong time and wrong place occurrences, circumstantial evidence. Thus, the Death sentence is appropriate in ridding the society of people committing capital offences, in spite of do ing injustice to some. However, life in prison as a sentence is the viable option as compared to the death sentence as delivers more and reduces the chances of exposing innocent people to risk of dying (procon.org). This is because; life in prison is swift, severe and certain providing justice to the victims of the committed crime. In addition, another reason for the support of death penalty is the cost that the society has to bear concerning maintaining prisoners on life imprisonment (Smith). Therefore, the financial and economic costs of maintaining a prisoner serving life are astronomical to the tune of $50000 a year (Smith). This is more than an individual spends in their normal day-to-day life outside the prison as some earn even less than that. Sentencing such a person to death is easier for the society, as it does not have to shoulder the costs of providing for the needs of the inmates. In addition, the death sentence is more suitable as those sentenced to life in prison are at times released under the context of rehabilitation and overcrowded prisons. This allows them to return to the society and continue with their criminal activities. This way, taking the life of the criminal, ensures with maximum certainty that the crime will not be committed again, but by the same person. However, this is not the case, as there is existence of sentences that subject criminals to life imprisonment with no chance of parole. This way, inmates have way of leaving thus the death sentence is rendered redundant. However, Life imprisonment is the better option of the two due to its deterrent nature, as the death sentence is not a deterrent measure to stopping crime. This is because; only sane people can plan any crime that is punished by death, as they have the time and ability to carry out the plans that end up in the crime (Smith). This way punishing people by having theme serve time in prison where they cannot enjoy their freedom and some rights reduces the chances of s imilar crimes recurring, either perpetrated by the same person or other members of the society. In addition, life in prison ensures that no more crimes are committed by the government in the name of protecting the safety of the public through executions (Procon.org). This way, it allows resources to be turned to other issues that require attention other than attempting to exhaust legal channels in a bid to save lives. This

Oslo Peace Initiative Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Oslo Peace Initiative - Essay Example For the Palestinians, the peace agreement of Israel with Egypt served to increase their desperation. This led to the intensification of struggle by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) under Yassir Arafat. Though the United States entered the scene and made it a personal agenda to restore peace in the Middle East, only limited progress was made in the 1978 Camp David negotiations because of mutual distrust and suspicion between the two parties. Even though this eventually brought about the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, dissatisfaction and stalemate in the situation led to the First Intifadaor the Arab Revolt in 1987-91 in Gaza Strip and West Bank. There was change in leadership in Israel and Yitzhak reversed his nation's stand and tried to negotiate with the PLO and participated in the secret talks in Oslo, Norway (MERIP 2006:3); as the result Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles, was signed in Washington in September 1993, which is otherwise known as the Oslo Accord. Through this PLO recognized Israel and Israel the authority of PLO. It is clear from the above that, suspicion and mistrust ruled high here from the beginning. The main issue of contention was not one of religion, but more an issue of home-land. The Palestinians needed more areas for their large population, who had lost their homes during the wars and were living as refugees elsewhere. In one estimate their numbers were close to three million (MERIP 2006: 6). The entitlement status to be given to the Palestinians and the treatment of Israeli settlements (Israel evacuated all Israelites from the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the next few years) were other significantly unresolved issues that led to frustration. Rights to the Jordan River waters, on which was another important reason for animosity. Finally, Jerusalem with its historical places of worship was also a point of dispute, with both sides refusing to give up claim (Mideastweb 2006:1). While the Israelites consider Jerusalem as their "eternal capital" ((MERIP 2006:8), Arabs also want it as their capital because of its association with Prophet Mohammed. According to some, in first place the agreement itself was "deeply flawed" because it did not find many takers in the Arab nations (MERIP 2006:3). Importantly, the accord did not find support amongst the radical Islamist leaders in the two strategic places of Gaza Strip and West Bank. The infighting in the Palestinian camp, spurts of violence of the HAMAS and Jihad, ensured that the Oslo Peace Initiative was hardly allowed a chance. Israel did not want to allow the return of Palestinian refugees because it would undermine their majority status and reduce their population. In a nutshell, after the Oslo Peace Accord More than seven years have gone by and Israel has security and administrative control of 61.2% of the West Bank and about 20% of the Gaza Strip and security control over another 26.8% of the West Bank. This control is what has enabled Israel to double the number of settlers in 10 years..and to seal an entire nation into restricted areas, imprisoned in a network of bypass roads meant for Jews only... (ifAmericansknew.com 2006) Why is there conflict between the two peoples (now) still in 2007! To a keen observer, it may be clear that there are no easy solutions to a problem of this