For and Against Death Penalty

12 Angry Men

About
The 12 Angry men is about a jury discussing whether to give someone a death penalty because he is accused of murder. In the beginning, most of them vote that he is guilty and only one of the juror voted not guilty. The other jurors reasoned his opinion and their own. They were persuading him to change his decision to guilty. Towards the end of the movie, it was found that the murderer was not actually guilty of the murder. The one juror convinced everyone to change their decision.


My favourite part of the movie was the part where the one juror who voted not guilty finally convinced everyone to vote for guilty. He used his opinion and evidence, also targeted other juror's weakness
to prove them wrong. It is unbelievable how other jurors decide on someone's life so quickly at the beginning as though they never thought of the situation. They used a woman's eye witness and took it as a true statement.

The Stars of the Twelve Angry Men are :
1 - Martin Balsam
2 - John Fielder
3 - Lee J.Cobb
4 - E.G. Marshall
5 - Jack Klugman
6 -Edward Binns
7 - Jack Warden
8 - Henry Fonda
9 - Joseph Sweeny
10 - Ed Begly
11 - George Voscovek
12 - Robert Webber

How reliable are you senses?

 Eyewitness of others can be trusted to a certain extent. They are not 100% reliable because most senses can be distracted or mistaken depending on the surroundings or the alteration of the brain.

Falsely Accused or Imprisoned People
Greg Taylor

Greg Taylor was convicted of murdering Jacquetta Thomas, a woman he had never met.
He swore his innocence from the start, but every appeal failed. Taylor got a break, when a novel fact-finding agency called the N.C. Innocence Inquiry Commission recommended his case to a three-judge panel for further review.

The judges declared him innocent and set him free.

He was the first prisoner in the nation to earn his freedom through such a process.

He had spent 17 years longing for his home and family.

For or Against Death Penalty

For
Justice (Prevents Vigilance)
Deterrent
Safety
Cheaper
Prisoner Cannot Escape

Against
Universal DHR
Innocent
Does not necessarily stop crime
Encourages violent crime

There are many different conditions towards whether death penalty should be held or not.
In my opinion, I'm FOR death penalty only up to certain reasons.
Why?
Death Penalty should only be held when a life is taken away for no sensible reason.
Such as:-
Murder with Intention
Terrorism
Though, it should not be conducted for:-
Drug Trafficking
Killing for Self Defense
Accident
Being Not Mentally Stable

It is unfair for those who are less fortunate and uneducated about the law. Most wouldn't know the effects of drugs trafficking which leads to them doing it.
Self Defense is mandatory, no one wants a murderer to kill them so instead they would attack first.
Accidents are accidents unless there is an intention to it.
For one who is likely mentally insane has rights to live life normally. Even if they kill, they should be punished instead of sent to death penalty.

Should Different Offences be Given one Fixed Punishment

We do not think that there should be one fixed punishment for different offences. Each crime is committed by someone for different reasons.

There is a wide range of offences in this world, there should not be one fixed punishment for the different offences this is because some are severe and some are not. Also the range of people that do this crimes. and the reason why these people did it. Depends on why the person did it.

For Example, if someone who is hungry stole one bun from a bakery because he is starving and needs it for his live, I personally do not think he should be punished but instead should be helped. This person is perfectly innocent and is just trying to keep himself alive.
But if there someone who would steal a bun for the fun of it, that is an actual crime.