Recent attacks in America have called for a controversial topic: the death penalty. The shooter in Las Vegas and the attacks in New York city during the month of October have been horrific and terrifying for our nation. The most recent attack in NYC was the deadliest in the city since 9/11. Reports from the New York City police say that the truck driver, Saipov, “was inspired by watching Islamic State videos and felt good about his attack.” Saipov killed 8 people and injured 12 as he rammed his truck down a bike path, and while he was in the hospital he asked authorities if he could hang an ISIS flag in his room. Unlike many other American terrorist attacks, Saipov lived beyond his attack and now the question is what should be done to him. Trump recently tweeted, “(he) SHOULD GET THE DEATH PENALTY!” On the other hand, Manhattan attorney, Joon Kim, says the first count is a maximum penalty of life in prison with capital punishment.
1.)What do you think should be done to Saipov: death penalty or life imprisonment?
2.)How should America sentence the attackers who do kill mass groups of people?
I think Saipov should be put in prison for life, and not be killed for his actions. I know that he killed a lot of people but he still doesn’t deserve to die--nobody deserves to. I think that our nation should not use the death penalty ever, especially for these attacks because that shows other countries that we are better person and won’t sink to their level of killing people. In the future, America should only put these people in jail for life, or have them live in self-confinement. That way we don’t show the world that the terrorist attacks brought us down.
Replies
Super job Lucy!
1. Clearly Saipov doesn't feel bad about what he did, and just killing him isn't going to make him feel any different, therefore not really giving him any punishment. Giving him life imprisonment should help him feel what he did was very wrong. Also, responding to an attack with killing someone is not the right way to react. Though many people think you deserve what you did, it doesn't make sense to say how awful it is for people to be killed, which it is, but then just go ahead and punish them with death. It doesn't look good, it is not the right thing to do, and it is kind of hypocritical.
2. I think life imprisonment is the right way to go. This will help the murders really see how their wrong doings hurt other people as well as themselves.
I completely agree with you and you views that killing a killer isn't going to help anyone or make a difference to him. That is also interesting that you said it is hypocritical-which is very true and people shouldn't think that the death penalty is acceptable. I do think that this could show murders that killing people won't give you fame and glory; it gets you locked up for life. Do you think they should have life imprisonment, and why is this better than just a few years?
I don't think the death penalty would be suitable for Saipov. Yes, his crime was bad, but America doesn't use the death penalty. I think life imprisonment would better suit him and the crime he committed. I think America should sentence the attackers who kill mass groups of people by life in jail or jail for a long time. The death penalty would most likely decrease the crime rate, but it is not the best way to deal with crimes.
I think the death penalty would be suitable in this case because of how many people he killed. Its not right for someone to kill all those people an be able to live. In most cases after there have been mass shootings the attackers themselves usually end up taking their own life anyways so having the death penalty for all states would be okay.
You brought up some interesting points about how mass shooters usually take their own life anyways. That is why this topic is bringing heated discussion; no one knows what to do with the attackers if they live! You mentioned above that this is a suitable case for the use of the death penalty, so what cases wouldn't be acceptable to use the death penalty?
I think he should get the death penalty because that is one more person you don't have to worry about that is trying to harm innocent Americans. I think all states should have the death penalty because there would be less crimes because people would die and not be cared for in a prison.
Those are some interesting opinions about the death penalty! I like how you said that crime rate could go down if we installed the death penalty in every state. do you think the public would like having the death penalty for everyone? How do you think our country would go about implementing the death penalty everywhere?
I think he almost deserves the death penalty. I don't know why people always have to do bad things. He killed the people, why should he be able to live. Generally, they kill themselves. So I don't think us changing anything will change anything nationally. Maybe it would give people a scare. but noting major. You made a good point that we shouldn't go to their level. But honestly if it stops it, maybe we should.
That is interesting how you said that if we could scare them it would maybe stop terrorists from attacking us in the future. I don't know how we could go about making sure that they are scared and that it did work, besides the fact that there could be less attacks. Since a lot of the attackers die, this is a difficult situation for our country. Do you think each fate for the criminals should change based on their crime or should it be the death penalty for everyone? Why?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next