The death penalty is a very controversial topic that is becoming a more popular topic since some projects and exonerations have come to light. Some people have a “turn the other cheek” attitude, or make prisoners serve their full term in prisons while others say “an eye for an eye,” or the law of retaliation. In the Bible, Matthew 5:38 states “eye for eye and tooth for tooth.” While there are valid arguments to both sides, I agree with turning the other cheek. There are many arguments that could be addressed about the death penalty and the pros and cons of it being legal to execute someone, but my main focus is - is the death penalty moral and why do people agree that it is or disagree that it isn’t? I feel as though “eye for an eye” is very hypocritical considering most people on death row are sentenced to death row for the crime of murder. According to deathpenaltyinfo.org, there are 24 …show more content…
Many people agree that “an eye for an eye” is the best way to settle things. They present statistics saying that over 3/4 of the people that get released from prison go on to commit the same crime as before, not wanting anyone else to be murdered or raped. (the two crimes that most often receive the death penalty). But there are also the “turn the other cheek” people. That’s not saying to let someone get away with awful crimes such as rape and murder. It just doesn’t make sense to legally kill someone for them killing someone. It’s very hypocritical for someone to say “we should kill them because they killed someone else”. It does not cost more money to keep someone in prison for life than it does to execute them. I think that the death penalty should be ruled illegal. After all, there have been 20 people proved innocent by a retrial that were on death row. Just think about how many more can or could have been proven innocent if they would have pursued a retrial. After all, death is completely
Many people are led to believe that the death penalty doesn’t occur very often and that very few people are actually killed, but in reality, it’s quite the opposite. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1,359 people have been executed as a result of being on death row since 1977 to 2013. Even though this form of punishment is extremely controversial, due to the fact that someone’s life is at stake, it somehow still stands to this very day as our ultimate form of punishment. Although capital punishment puts murderers to death, it should be abolished because killing someone who murdered another, does not and will not make the situation any better in addition to costing tax payers millions of dollars.
The death penalty has always been a subject of controversy. Some say that it is a barbaric practice that should be done away with while others claim it to be necessary to ensure the safety of modern society. Either way, capital punishment has always remained a grey area in the
An inmate by the name of Gary Graham drew several protestors to a Huntsville unit in the year 2000; they were there in opposition to Graham’s execution. This day finally came after nineteen years on death row and four appeals. With him being a repeat offender he was not new to this side of the justice system, but after being put in prison he became a political activist who worked to abolish the death penalty. People who stood against his execution argued that his case still had reasonable doubt, he was rehabilitating himself, and his punishment would cause major harm to his family. Aside from that you have the advocates arguing that you have to set example for others, so you must carry out the punishment that was given, and while the execution may harm the offender’s family it will give the victims’ families closure for his crimes.
In this paper I will ask three people four different questions about their views on the death penalty. The first question I asked was “Why do you feel the death penalty is wrong?” Question number two, “Does the death penalty help protect the public and discourage crime?” Question number three, “Do you consider the death penalty cruel and unusual?” The final question, “Is the death penalty economically justifiable and cost effective?”
Bob McCulloch, Missouri state prosecutor, argues that this type of punishment is very appropriate. He also points out that the death penalty punishment is not applicable to the type of murder that we daily see on the television, or read about in the newspapers, but to those that are “particularly horrendous,” such as multiple murders, murders for hire, and so on (qtd in “The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty”). He even goes on to describe one murder case that he worked on, as an example of a crime worthy of the death penalty. It’s the case of a man who gutted his girlfriend and her infant, and then cut off the baby’s head. A lot of death penalty supporters, sixty five percent to be more precise, believe in the Biblical saying “an eye for an eye,” arguing that the punishment really should fit the crime. They also believe that the family of a victim has the right to some type of a closure, and that the death penalty is the best way to provide them with one. John McAdams, Marquette University’s professor of political science, argues that by executing a murderer one cannot go wrong: “If you execute a murderer and it stops other murders, ...
Justice should be served, but I don’t understand how killing someone who killed someone else brings justice. I feel that execution is the easy way out. A better form of punishment is keeping a criminal in prison, where they will have to live the rest of their lives knowing they committed a crime. Living with guilt is a far better punishment. Not to mention those who, as I stated before, are convicted innocently or those who are sentenced to death wrongfully.
Death penalty has always been a topic of controversy. Interchangeably known as capital punishment, death penalty legalizes the authorization to sentence the execution of a criminal. Controversy that rise from death penalty involve the notion of ethics and epistemology. Many people questions whether it is morally right to take another person’s life, tieing into the 8th amendment that prohibits people from suffering from a certain type of punishment. Another factor is that what exactly determines whether a person deserves execution or not. The justice system has the legal dilemma of properly determining to what extent of a crime committed is reprehensible enough to face death or if it is not as grave and more suitable with merely a life sentence.
The Death Penalty is cruel and unusual, however we still give constitutional acceptance to the federal system. It presents “a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those other barbaric practices, executions have no place in civilized society.”(1) It is wrong to advocate the the use of the capital punishment when numerous options are available to those in need of rehabilitation. Three of the most prominent problems with continuing this archaic method of retribution are innocents conflicted with inaccurate verdicts, the death penalty being a state-sanctioned killing that only continues the evolution of violence, and the nation's taxes going towards the purchase of fatal narcotics used in the killings of fellow human beings.
The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. According to Hugo A. Bedau, the writer of “The Death Penalty in America”, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The death penalty has been used since ancient times for a variety of offenses. The Bible says that death should be done to anyone who commits murder, larceny, rapes, and burglary. It appears that public debate on the death penalty has changed over the years and is still changing, but there are still some out there who are for the death penalty and will continue to believe that it’s a good punishment. I always hear a lot of people say “an eye for an eye.” Most people feel strongly that if a criminal took the life of another, their’s should be taken away as well, and I don’t see how the death penalty could deter anyone from committing crimes if your going to do the crime then at that moment your not thinking about being on death role. I don’t think they should be put to death they should just sit in a cell for the rest of their life and think about how they destroy other families. A change in views and attitudes about the death penalty are likely attributed to results from social science research. The changes suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment in America (Radelet and Borg, 2000).
I believe that there is a standard when it comes to morality. The basics of that standard includes knowing that murder, rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, larceny, and perjury are wrong. What does it mean for something to be wrong? It means that the majority of human beings can argue that those crimes hurt rather than benefit individuals or a society as a whole. The death penalty can be implemented for any of the crimes listed above when a judge believes that the crime is serious enough. However, the death penalty uses one of the crimes itself; murder. If the government uses the death penalty as a punishment in order to show that murder is wrong, how can they murder and assume it is right? Opponents of this statement could argue that the government has a judicial system in order to uphold the moral code within our society, and that the death penalty honors human dignity by allowing the defendant to control his own destiny. However, I argue that the death penalty objectifies and takes away the humanity of the defendant.
The term “eye for an eye” is derived from the Latin words lex talionis. In the words of Stephen Nathanson it means, “What people deserve as recipients of rewards or punishments is determined what they do as agents.” In my opinion, criminals take life, liberty, peace, goods, in order to reward themselves with undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society. Once a person no longer abides by the laws which govern society, they are no longer entitled to the protection of the laws of society. Meaning, if you choose to break the law and kill a person, you no longer should have the same rights as those who respect law and authority and you are no longer protected under those said rights. There must be dire consequences for heinous crimes. There should be set standards of punishment. We as a society have an obligation to protect and seek justice for those who abide by social order. We must
Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished Why should the death penalty be abolished? The death penalty should be abolished for many reasons. Many people believe the saying, 'an eye for an eye'. But when will people realize that just because someone may have killed a loved one that the best thing for that person is to die also? People don't realize that they are putting the blood of another person's life on their hands.
In past centuries, the problem was how to find the most painful way to execute a criminal, not whether criminals should be executed or not. Killing alone wasn’t an acceptable way of punishment (McCuen 8). Nowadays, 97.5% of crimes go unpunished in the United States, and the 2.5% who are punished are not being treated harsh enough (90). The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense (Kurtz). Criminals who murder, rape, kidnap, torture others, or commit treason should not have the same punishment as crimes of lesser value (Kurtz). This point is backed up by the bible, where it is stated in the first chapter. In Genesis 9:6 it says, “Yes, you must execute anyone who murders another person, for to kill another person is to kill a living being made in God’s image”. It is also brought up again in Exodus 21:23-24 where it states, “But if any harm results, then the offender must be punis...
Some even claim that it is cruel and unusual punishment. I would like to shed light on the issue and inform everyone as to why we should keep the death penalty and possibly even use it more than we do now. First of all, it is hard for anyone to argue that we already use the death penalty too much because facts say that we hardly use it at all. Since 1967, there has been one execution for every 1,600 murders. There have been approximately 560,000 murders and 358 executions between 1967 and 1996(UCR and BJS).
Though the death penalty is considered barbaric, it is not. With those who have ones that have died viciously to the ones who died young there is such a thing as karma. The death penalty allows those people who committed the crime to be punished equally. Therefore, I agree with the reason for having the death penalty. It is only fair that the criminal be punished for his wrong doings. The bible does say, “An eye for an eye.” When there is equal punishment and safety it makes people worry less. It allows them to live out their lives in peace, and to not look back on something bad that has happened to them.