Why should the Death Penalty laws be stricter in CT an Example by

Why should the Death Penalty laws be stricter in CT Death penalty is a crime control mechanism where criminals convicted of committing serious crimes are punished by death. Death penalty as a crime control method is legal in Connecticut but the irony is that though crime prevalence in this region is still high, only one person has been executed since post Furman period or since 1976. Proponents of death penalty maintain that it controls and reduces crime levels by acting as a deterrent and that is why this law should be enforced and not abolished in this state. Need essay sample on "Why should the Death Penalty laws be stricter in CT" topic? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you Proceed Undergraduates Usually Tell EssayLab support: Who wants to write assignment for me? Essay writer professionals advise: Don't Waste Your Time College Essay Writing Service Writing My Essay Help Me With My Assignment Essay Company There is no good explanation that can be given as to why death penalty in Connecticut fails to work in controlling crime taking into consideration that the only execution that has been done in this state since 1976 was of a rapist and a serial killer, Michael Bross Ross in 2005. In states where there are stricter death penalty laws, crime rate is lower that in states where there is laxity in the law like in the case of Connecticut. When the trend of crime in Connecticut is looked closely, it is evident that the rate of crime has increased in the recent past unlike it was the case in the 1960s when criminals were frequently executed. According to the UCR Crime Statistics that were released by the Disaster Center in 2008, it is clear that indeed this is the case for example in 1960 the number of rape, murder and robbery were 103, 41 and 236 respectively but the figures of the respective crimes in 2007 were 658,106 and 3067. Currently despite the fact that crime levels are very high, it is only ten criminals who have been condemned to death but are yet to be executed. Its proponents ague that the government is not doing enough to ensure that crime is rooted out from the society. These people argue that when a criminal is convicted of a particular crime, they are taken to prison where they are sentenced for a short time and then released to the public. Others spend decades waiting for their fate to be decided something that makes the country to spend a lot of money maintaining people who are not beneficial and are a burden to the society The concern that arises is, how would these people change their behaviors and yet the punishment is not harsh enough. Punishment accorded to a criminal should be commensurate with the harm done as that is the only way to make the criminal pay for the crime done but this is not what happens in Connecticut for example, even a confessed serial killer and rapist like Michael Bross may be would be alive today were it not for his request to be executed instead of serving 120 years in prison (Judson) Connecticut government should make death penalty laws stricter to ensure that people do not commit similar crimes as it is due to lack of strong laws in place that has led to the upsurge in crime levels. Punishment should be painful enough to ensure that others are deterred and this is why these laws should be enforced and not abolished as some claims. All the convicted persons that are currently in the prison waiting should be executed to serve as an example to others who are contemplating of committing similar crimes. By doing this the government would save a lot of money that would have been wasted in maintaining these criminals instead of being used to fight crime. Works Cited: Judson G. Appeal in Death Sentence of the Killer of 4 Girls. 1994. Available at http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ctcrime.htm