一篇大学英文演讲稿 话题是具有争议性的. 5到7分钟.

话题是具有争议性的有是否死刑 Death Penalty An issue that has continually created tension in today's society is whether the death penalty serves as a justified and valid form of punishment. Whenever the word "death penalty" comes up, extremists from both sides start yelling out their arguments. One side says deterrence, the other side says there's a potential of executing an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder. Crime is an evident part of society, and everyone is aware that something must be done about it. Most people know the threat of crime to their lives, but the question lies in the methods and action in which it should be dealt with. In several parts of the world, the death penalty has been apportioned to those who have committed a variety of offenses from the time of ancient Babylon to present-day America. The Roman Empire made use of the death penalty liberally, as did the Church of the Middle Ages. As history tells us, capital punishment, whose definition is "the use of death as a legally sanctioned punishment," is an acceptable and efficient means of deterring crime. Today, the death penalty remains an effective method of punishment for murder and other heinous crimes. There is debate over the morals and effectiveness of such a harsh sentence. Most commonly, the death penalty is challenged as a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which says that the U.S. cannot use "cruel and unusual" punishment. Due to the fact that "punishment" is a legal infliction of suffering, it must be somewhat "cruel.” As for being unusual, it is anything but, due to the long history of its usage. People will plunder, take advantage of others, and commit crimes as long as it is in their best interest to do so. The purpose of our entire criminal justice system is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property for all its citizens. To do this, the punishment for crime must be harsh enough to deter potential criminals. Under this mindset, the death penalty makes perfect sense. Here is a punishment that truly makes a criminal pay for his crime, stops the criminal from committing it again, and deters other criminals from committing the same crime. The punishment for murder is getting to be shorter and shorter. A judge could sentence a man to life in prison. That same man could be out of jail with 15 years. How has life in jail become known as ten to fifteen years? If the judge says life with no parole, then the criminal could stay in jail a bit longer, but that would mean the state and it's voters would have to take care of the prisoner for twenty to twenty five years. How can we trust the murderers and thieves of our country to a judicial system that will either let them out in ten years or have us take care of them for twenty years, and then let them go? The criminals do not fear the punishment anymore, because they know they will not die. Punishment is meant to give justice to the wrongdoer and to keep him from doing it again. I am not saying we execute all of the criminals in the world, but it has to remain an option for the courts to use and to scare the criminals of the country. Many criminals don't fear the judicial system. They know that they will get out in ten years if they murder someone. They are not afraid of jail or their punishment. How can we force them to stop killing or stealing if they are not afraid of the punishment we give them. Most rational men are afraid of death. They don't want to die. There are also men that don't fear death, but enjoy killing. They must be controlled, but if they are sentenced to life, they are soon free to kill again. Again, I am not saying we should kill all the men in jail and any other criminal in the world. That is not the answer either, but we must have the death penalty as an option so that they will be afraid to break the law, and to control those who don't fear death but love to break the law. While attorneys are protecting the rights of the accused, the family of the victim often gets lost in the legal proceedings. While the accused is protected by laws and is the center of the scuffle between various lawyers, the mourning family receives little more than the media circus for their grief. They receive inadequate compensation for their loss, but with a death penalty, they can at least be assured that that person who murdered their loved one will never kill again. Capital punishment should remain in use and delivered more frequently. only too often are death penalties reduced to life sentences or less and more condemned inmates die in death row than by execution. The effectiveness of capital punishment rests largely on the willingness of officials to use it liberally and thus exerting the power of the government. This penalty would serve as a deterrent of violent crimes and restore justice. Increased use would prod people to stay away from violent crimes. Would-be criminals would think twice before committing an offense punishable by death, and because of this, societies would gain a sense of "moral security.” As we can see from previous civilizations such as the Babylonian and Roman Empires, death penalty is effective and much more efficient than spending millions of society’s tax dollars to upkeep their prison stay. Killers who have showed themselves capable of savage brutality need to be prevented from repeating their crimes and act as a lesson to others. Capital punishment is the most effective way. Given the benefits of capital punishment, it is hard to imagine why anyone would be against it, but there are several arguments against the death sentence that need to be addressed. Opponents of the death penalty point out that there is a possibility of wrongly executing an innocent man. Of course, there is a possibility of wrongly sending an innocent man to prison, or wrongly fining an innocent man, but they contend that because of the finality and severity of the death penalty, the consequences of wrongly executing an innocent person are much more wrong. There has never been any proof of an innocent man being executed, although there are some studies that show in a few cases, there is a possibility that someone was wrongly executed. Our judicial system takes many precautions to ensure that the rights of the innocent are protected. In order to understand this, one must look at the complex process required to convict someone of first-degree murder and get him sentenced to death. First a person is arrested and given an attorney. Evidence must be presented proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed first degree murder. The defendant must have been in a clear state of mind. After a five to six week trial, the defendant goes on to a second trial to decide whether he deserves the death penalty. Again, a full trial is held. Defense presents evidence on why this murderer does not deserve to die. After this occurs and the murderer is sentenced to die, his case is automatically appealed to the state Supreme Court. After that, he may file a number of different appeals. Finally, about ten years later, after every legal attempt and delay tactic has been exhausted, the murderer is executed. As should be evident from this complex process, every reasonable precaution is taken to ensure that no innocent man is executed. Although it is very unlikely that an innocent person would be executed, the question arises about whether the execution of an innocent man is a strong enough argument to abolish the death penalty. Before deciding, one must remember the lives that the death penalty saves. Repeat murderers are eliminated, and potential murderers are deterred. As mentioned earlier, one must consider the victims as well as the defendant. Is it worth it to lose forty-five innocent lives so that no innocent person is executed? This practice is considered acceptable. Risking the possibility that someone might be wrongly executed is worth it to save the lives of thousands of innocent people who might be the next victims of murder. A second argument against the death penalty is discrimination. Eighty-two percent of all murder victims are white and thirteen percent are black. This is about a 6:1 ratio. Opponents of the death penalty, such as the NAACP, argue that the system values white lives more than black lives. If this is true, one has to wonder why whites represent fifty-five percent of those executed and blacks thirty-nine percent, when blacks have committed forty-nine percent of all murders, and whites thirty-nine percent from 1976-1994. Successful prosecutions depend on the nature of the crime and not the race of the victim. The reason that whites are overwhelmingly the victims in death row cases is that whites are overwhelmingly the victims in capital crimes. The death penalty is not racist and does not violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause. Capital punishment has proven to have good benefits upon the country in determining the consequences that criminals deserve. This is needed to ensure the safety and moral values of society. If this is the case, there is no need for us to consider the expenses involved in the death penalty. Certainly human lives are more important, for it may easily be yours. We should not abolish capital punishment, but hold our country accountable for properly exercising the death penalty upon those who deserve it.Works CitedAnonymous: "Death Penalty and Sentencing Information in the United States." Internet.