In 1982 Montana,
Ronald Smith committed first degree murder. The victims were two cousins, Harvey Mad man and Thomas Running Rabbit.
His reason for the murder was to simply know what it felt like to kill someone. As a result Ronald
spent the past three decades locked up in Montana State Prison, but now the U.S
government is considering giving him a death sentence. However, the problem is
he is Canadian! Should a Canadian be given a death penalty in the U.S? Should Ronald
Smith be spared from the death penalty because of his Canadian origins, or
accept the punishment like any other U.S criminal? First of all we should think
about why people think the death penalty is inhuman, or acceptable, and who is
affected by Ronald’s actions, and how they feel.
For the past thirty years Ronald Smith has been in jail. The
idea of jail is for criminals to repent on their sins. If it was to only
confine the threats to public safety why would they release them back into
society? That is because the purpose of jail is for the criminals to learn
their lesson and change into law abiding citizens. So, why would that Ronald Smith had to spend
thirty years in a cell just to be put to death? Over the past three decades of
confinement, Ronald Smith has told the victim's family about his
regrets. Isn’t this evident that his time in confinement changed him? On the
other hand, if you go to another country you have to obey their laws, and part
of obeying the laws is accepting the punishments. An example would be
smuggling. If you bring drugs across the border, or guns, or anything forbidden
in the U.S and get caught you be fined a lot of money. Being fined money was
the consequence of smuggling. Ronald made the choice to do a crime, it only makes sense for him to accept the consequences too.
Would sentencing Ronald Smith even be beneficial in the first
place? No, the victim’s families won’t gain anything through his death, aside
from some sort of feeling of satisfying vengeance. However, is it better to
take revenge, or simply forgive someone? Have you heard the saying, “An eye for
an eye makes the whole world blind.”? We would agree that revenge is never the
answer. Haven’t we been taught this in school? By giving Ronald the death
sentence not only would Ronald die, but his family would be in anguish. Why
should we make more people miserable, for the sake of an eye for an eye? No, we
should not even out the death of Harvey, and Thomas, by putting Ronald to
death. However, because Ronald has killed
Thomas, and Harvey not only did he make an impact to their lives, but they also
impacted their loved one’s lives. It is evident that there is more than one
victim. Ronald’s actions resulted in two dead people, children without a
father, and many relatives who lost their kin. So, after this person has caused
so much anguish in many lives, could we really let this go?
Should
Ronald be spared from the death penalty in the U.S? Yes, he should be spared
from the death penalty. What he did was wrong, and there is no excuse for
murder, however we should not try to solve the problem by ending his life. He
has been separated from society, his friends, and family for thirty whole
painstaking years. He already gave a sincere apology, to the victim’s family. After all the turmoil he had to face in those thirty years, Ronald probably learned his lesson, and he should be given another chance.
My Sources
I really liked your post, Michelle!
ReplyDeleteBut I still have stuff to argue with in this post.
Ronald kill two people just to see how it is like to kill a person. Even though he has been in jail for thirty years, he cut not one, but two people's short. he still should of at least stayed in prison for a longer time. King Hammurabi stated in his code of laws that" An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth for a reason. It was so that people will think about the consequences for killing. If Ronald Smith is to be excused, people might want to be like him because even though he committed first degree murder, he was let go after thirty years. But That amount of time is sort of scary. Instead, they might do something less extreme like stealing stuff.
I didn't know that King Hammurabi was the one who enforced the "eye for an eye" law. As far as I know, this law was created a long time ago. I am not saying that we should let the criminal off scott free. I do believe that the criminal should be face the consequences, but the death sentence is probably extreme in this case.
DeleteEven if Ronald was to be excused from the death penalty, I highly doubt that a whole bunch of people would want to just suddenly become murderers. Even if the people decide to steal instead of murder someone, they will still face charges, and punishments. These crimes would be put in some permanent record. Not only would you be labled as a criminal for life and ruin your reputation, but it would be hard to get a job. If you want to apply a job in a bank, but your record said that you stole something, you wouldn't get the job since they can't trust you. This would probably ruin your life. In short, I don't think more people would simply dive into the criminal world, simply because Ronald may be spared from the death penalty. The death penalty is still exists in Montana, regardless of Ronald's case.
Even if we don't use the "eye for an eye" concept, I think people would think twice before doing some sort of criminal act.
Did you know that when you turn 16, you can wipe away your criminal records in Canada? Well it is possible. For my comment, I was talking about the teens in Canada. Since it is possible to wipe away your criminal record before sixteen after you turned sixteen, teenager might have the slight temptation to steal something small, such as an eraser, because the punishment would not be that great.
DeleteI am not saying that anybody here have stolen anything but how about some kid with financial difficulties that the money the government give to those who have low income and the food bank is not enough. That one small thing might develop into a habit and before you know it, that small theft could lead to a major one.
Debating with you is fun! I look forward to your next post!
Awesome post Michelle. I like how you asked questions in your post and then answered them too. Also, you gave examples. I had no idea who that guy was, but after I read your post, I understood.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that Ronald should not be killed (as you said) but they should not let him out of jail. He should have to spend the rest of his life in prison because just saying he wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone is just dumb. For doing something as stupid as that, he should be in prison for the rest of his life.
I personally think that Ronald should recieve a harsher punishment, then just being locked up for only thrity years. I am not too sure about having him locked up in prison for life. I feel sorry for his family since they haven't seen him in a long time.
DeleteThanks for giving the feedback! Did I improve on my grammar? Is my post clear, and easy to read?
ReplyDeleteGoodness gracious, quite an excellent post. I do have to say, I'm quite impressed by the sheer amount and thought put into this and I do kind of agree on the whole issue of the death penalty, but I think a bit differently.
ReplyDeleteMost importantly, you understand the criminal law quite well and it definitely shows. Your knowledge shows quite well, and you've cited your sources.
If you ever need a tip for grammar or clear reading, try using a word processor or Google Chrome. They'll show any misspelling, or run on sentences and will happily fix them.
A great post overall! Keep up the excellent work!