Involuntary Holding of Dangerous Offenders
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The arguments in favor of involuntary holding of certain dangerous offenders in prisons usually relates to sex offenders or others with mental disorders. A case which would argue strongly in favor of this is that of Elmer Spencer (Vatz, 2001). In 1974, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity for trying to strangle an 11-year-old boy, and three years later was convicted of assault and battery and imprisoned for three years. In 1982, he was convicted of raping and 11-year-old boy and trying to strangle him, and served 14 years of a 20-year sentence. Less than a year after his release, he was arrested for an attempted attack on an 8-year-old boy, but the case was dropped for lack of evidence. He was then alleged to have committed a sexual offense against a 7-year-old girl, but again the case was dropped for lack of evidence. A few months later he was charged with an attempted rape and an assault on two police officers, for which he served three and a half years of a 10-year sentence. After his release, he was charged with the brutal sexual murder of a 9-year-old boy. Many blame the law or the parole boards for letting such a person out to continue committing their crimes (Vatz, 2001). Sexual predators are usually repeat offenders, whether or not they receive treatment, so people wonder why they are released after serving their sentences. Some states, like Maryland, where Spencer committed his offenses, allow for the "reconsideration hearings" at which sentenc
. . .
ion to pass the sentence on others.
Perhaps if more people saw the death penalty being carried out on television, live, they would realize the seriousness of the event, the finality of taking a human life. Perhaps potential criminals would see that it really does happen and see what it is like to suffer the death penalty. Maybe it would deter some of them from committing murder if they saw what would actually happen to them if they were caught, particularly some of the younger criminals in gangs. It would not be the heros death they all dream of in their gang wars, but a sanitary, public function. No glory, no heroic ending. Just fading away into oblivion. Perhaps this is the wake up call they need.
Media representatives are allowed as official witnesses to executions, but cameras are forbidden (Leighton, 1999). The federal Court of Appeals refused permission to televise Texas' first execution since 1964 in 1977, saying the reporter was still free to make his report by other means. Television stations already broadcast executions and assassinations which take place in other countries, so it is "ironic and contrary to the First Amendment principles that executions performed by our own government are deemed inappropriate
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Retrieved Feb, Zimring Hawkins, Spencer Vatz, John Lott, Court Appeals, Clarence Thomas, Lethal Violence, Maryland Spencer, Dr Kevorkian, York City, death penalty, zimring hawkins, violent crime, crime rate, vatz 2001, sex offenders, mental illness, lethal violence, leighton 1999, penalties violent crime, willing witness, feb 23 2006, retrieved feb 23, crime lethal violence, offenders supreme court,
Approximate Word count = 1690
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
