Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Debate: Should Death Row Inmates Receive Extraordinary Medical Treatment?. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 9 page paper examines the debate over the death penalty in order to answer the question, should death row inmates receive heroic medical treatment. The paper argues that such treatment should be given to inmates. Bibliography lists 5 sources.
Page Count:
9 pages (~225 words per page)
File: KV32_HV682647.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
is one that ignites an emotional response in many people, and under such circumstances, little reasonable discussion can take place. This paper will try to avoid the tendency to snap
judgment and consider the issue dispassionately. It takes the admittedly unpopular position that death row inmates do deserve to receive heroic medical intervention if such measures would be taken on
someone not incarcerated. Discussion This entire issue would not be an issue if society had resolved its indecision about the death penalty itself, so our discussion begins with a consideration
of the arguments on that subject. In 2005, Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule presented a paper arguing in favor of the death penalty, based on their contention that a "large
and growing body of evidence" shows that capital punishment is a strong deterrent against homicide. They wrote that "A leading study suggests that each execution prevents some eighteen murders, on
average" (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2005, p. 3). They go on to say that the actual numbers dont really matter; whats important is the deterrent effect, which means that a failure
to impose capital punishment condemns many innocent people to death (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2005). They argue further that states that imprison people for life but do not choose to execute
them are "ensuring the deaths of a large number of innocent people. On moral grounds, a choice that effectively condemns large numbers of people to death seems objectionable to say
the least" (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2005, p. 3). They go even further, saying that in such a case as this, the failure to impose the death penalty constitutes a "serious
moral wrong" (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2005, p. 3). A formal rebuttal to Sunstein and Vermeule was given by Carol Steiker, who calls their argument "consequentialist," which is defined
...