The Debate Over the Morality of the Death Penalty

1937 Words4 Pages

Senator for Utah Orrin Hatch once said, “Capital punishment is our society’s recognition of the sanctity of human life,” (Brainy Quote). While the arguments for both sides of the debate over the morality of the death penalty are vast, the bottom line is that the death penalty does not disregard human life, but rather it reveres it, as Hatch said. Morality is defined as, “The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct,” (The Free Dictionary). One who seeks to protect a person who has committed a heinous crime such as murder is arguably not in accords with what is right and wrong. Therefore, although killing is generally accepted as being wrong, the death penalty is sometimes the only solution to bring justice to a crime; thus, in these cases, it is the moral thing to do.
Opponents of the death penalty will argue that it is immoral to kill any human being, regardless of whether or not they have committed a crime. A primary explanation for this is that with the death penalty, it is possible for an innocent person to be wrongly convicted and killed as a result. The loss of an innocent life is a tragedy, and in a case where the loss was due to capital punishment, it is evident that the form of justice consequently did the opposite of what it aims to do: protect further innocent lives from being taken. This scenario also results in complications outside of the victim and their family. If a person is executed for a crime they did not commit, not only was another life ended for no justifiable reason, but in addition, valuable time and resources were wasted on the wrong person, and the real culprit is still out in the world, continuing to threaten society. Opponents of such punishment may also advocate that the met...

... middle of paper ...

...ason other than their own lust for human blood and suffering, their life should be ended in return.
Humans have a moral obligation to rid the world of people who kill or commit other heinous crimes. Killing is an evil act, but when it is committed, the only way to achieve justice is by dealing the killer the same hand they dealt an innocent. Human rights are violated by not eliminating the people who take someone else’s, because allowing someone who has murdered in cold blood to continue living is just as disrespectful to the person killed as the murderer taking their life in the first place. By eliminating these people, society is actually acknowledging the sanctity of human life. The death penalty is the moral solution because protecting a killer holds the same immorality as killing a person directly, and if we defend a killer, what makes us any better than them?

Open Document