Under What Circumstances
President Obama is a prime example of someone who is neutral when it comes to the death penalty. With someone like Obama, people who are neutral tend to feel the utmost caution should be taken on the subject of capital punishment and that they don’t feel like it should be abolished but at the same time it should be saved for only heinous crimes.
President Obama stated it perfectly in the 2012 presidential campaign when he gave his thoughts on the death penalty. He states, “I believe that the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances. There are extraordinarily heinous crimes, terrorism, and the harm of children, in which it may be appropriate. Obviously we’ve had some problems in this state, in the application of the death penalty and that’s why a moratorium was put in place and that’s why I was so proud to be one of the leaders in making sure that we overhauled it, death penalty system that was broken. For example, passing the first in the nation videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases. We have to have this ultimate sanction for certain circumstances in which the entire community says this is beyond the pale. While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I do believe there are some crimes – mass murder, the rape and murder of a child – so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.”
It is okay to be neutral or not take a certain side on this issue. Many people seek to want to mend it allowing the killers of heinous crimes be killed in a very painful way and not just lethal injection where the killer doesn’t feel anything.
The death penalty is a very controversial issue and a very important decision to make and in many cases it just depends under the circumstances of the crime-taking place.
President Obama stated it perfectly in the 2012 presidential campaign when he gave his thoughts on the death penalty. He states, “I believe that the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances. There are extraordinarily heinous crimes, terrorism, and the harm of children, in which it may be appropriate. Obviously we’ve had some problems in this state, in the application of the death penalty and that’s why a moratorium was put in place and that’s why I was so proud to be one of the leaders in making sure that we overhauled it, death penalty system that was broken. For example, passing the first in the nation videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases. We have to have this ultimate sanction for certain circumstances in which the entire community says this is beyond the pale. While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I do believe there are some crimes – mass murder, the rape and murder of a child – so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.”
It is okay to be neutral or not take a certain side on this issue. Many people seek to want to mend it allowing the killers of heinous crimes be killed in a very painful way and not just lethal injection where the killer doesn’t feel anything.
The death penalty is a very controversial issue and a very important decision to make and in many cases it just depends under the circumstances of the crime-taking place.