Death Penalty

I think that the death penalty should be used depending on the persons criminal backround, this could be including previous counts etc. This should be because the death penalty is an extreme result of a crime and should be carefully and logically determined. The amount of money it takes to keep a prisoner in jail for 1 year is 22,6000 and the amount of money spent on one inmate for a period of 11 months is extreme as well. This money can be used for funding such as schools, which is a much lower price rang. This is unfair because those who are responsible and wish to go somewhere in life should be benefited and schools should be given enough money to supply the students with proper learning, rather than paying for those who committed a crime. And average cost per student is 9,800, thats a 12,800 difference! Money should be more focused on education and those who have no commited a crime, instead of providing all these criminals with food and shelter giving them a "luxery life" because there neciessitys in life are handed to them. Workers have to pay a federal tax, which supports those who are poor providing food stamps etc. and helps provide shelter and necessities for criminals. Our money that we work for should not go to those who commit a crime, its unjust and unfair to those who work hard. Instead our money should benift ourselves and non-criminals in our society.

Insanity defence

I do not think that it is a good law, solely because although ones may suffer from certain health issues. Even though some people are unaware of there actions or think differently from right or wrong, they should be treated but also punished for there actions or they will never learn. If someone who carries a medical history that could be claimed to be a factor of them committing whatever they did, they should be treated for it. But if they committed a crime, they should be punished and not let "off the hook" because of certain health issues, or they will never learn from there wrong actions. Insanity can be considered in criminal cases but should be carefully looked into, if someone uses insanity as a defence it should be greatly looked into, such as previous record, health record and previous offences. Although insanity can be pleaded, the actions of the person should be punished. Not matter what. Insanity should be based on previous health records, if they carry the signs of insanity and the previous health record can support the theory then it should be set, but if not then it should not be used. On the Andrea Yates case, her previous records show signs of insanity, and before her children she was highly successful and knew formally right from wrong, in this case she killed her children to "save them" and wasn't harshly punished for it because it was a result of insanity. I think that she should be punished, she should have jail time for life, and pay the consequences of her actions but as well receive treatment to help her mental state. This was she receives help for her illness which has previously been used yet failed in this case, but she is also paying the time for her wrong and cruel actions, although her life would be affected completely, we must understand that she affected five other lives that never really was given a chance to experience life, in her case she did. She should not be killed because its very contradictioning, because she killed someone she shouldn't be killed for it, yet harshly punished, she ruined five lives, and her one should should be as well.