Death Penalty: Is it worth it? Capital punishment has been used throughout history. The severity of the crime has varied in this country and many other countries in which the death penalty has been carried out. We assume that the fear of receiving punishment or justice will deter murder. The fact is there isn't any reason to keep the death penalty. The reason death penalty is used instead of just life in prison is said to be a means to deter the criminal actions. Evidence shows that it doesn't deter the crime but actually is increased. The cost of trial, conviction, and ultimately carry out a death sentence costs substantially more then to keep a criminal for life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole. Is it morally correct to sentence someone to death even though they committed the most heinous of crimes? No matter what crime has been committed, killing is wrong. A few points to consider are, death row inmates stay in prison, on average, 18 years before the action of being put to death is enforced. Sentencing a person to death is irreversible. 25 people have been wrongfully put to death since the start of this century alone. Anything that involved even one error like this is unacceptable. Executions add to the glorification of violence that exists already too much in our society. It dehumanizes us; it legitimates murder; it leads to the loss of civilized society. No other major democracy uses the death penalty. No other major democracy in fact few other countries of any description are plagued by a murder rate such as that in the United States. The abolition of the death penalty is envisioned as desirable under international law and has become an unstoppable reality all around the world over the past few decade... ... middle of paper ... ...ely, but not with death. In the book Exodus chapter two verses eleven through twelve, Moses kills an Egyptian for striking a Hebrew, covers up his crime, and flees when he learns that the Pharaoh seeks to execute him. Many years later God takes this exiled murderer and transforms him into the liberator of the Hebrews. Instead of executing him, God makes Moses an instrument of saving justice. Matthew 6:12-15 makes it clear that forgiveness is not optional for those who follow Jesus. In the only prayer Jesus ever taught his disciples we beg God to "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us, "knowing that our failure to forgive renders us unfit for the reign of God."For if you forgive others the wrongs they have done, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive the wrongs you have done
As every day passes, prisoners wait patiently in their dreadful chamber, awaiting their execution day, which tends to result to physical and psychological torture. Consequently, this remains as the so-called righteousness of the death penalty, which is supposed to get rid of murderers, radicalism, and criminals that perform sodomy. Though, there are times when capital punishment goes horribly wrong, initiating the death of innocent prisoners, and instigating the prisoner to go through atrocious anguish. Moreover, the death penalty leads to additional damage to the victim’s family, since the death penalty entails the family to relieve the agony and grief of the death of their loved one for many years. Furthermore, capital punishment remains as the fundamental block to eradicate criminals, however, there are numerous drawbacks to the death penalty that lead to additional damage than solving the problem; therefore, Americans shouldn’t support capital punishment, unless their prepared to perform the undesirable job of killing the prisoners.
The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is when someone convicted of a crime is put to death by the state. This practice has been around for centuries. The death penalty has evolved from acts like public hanging, to the more “humane” lethal injection used today. Many people view this as the only acceptable punishment for murderers, mass rapist, and other dangerous crimes.
The death penalty is legal in thirty-one states and illegal in nineteen states. There are at least forty-one federal capital crimes in the United States that can be considered or guaranteed with the death penalty. The death penalty should be abolished because it is unlawful to society, humanity, and civilization as a whole. It costs far more to execute a person rather than to keep them in prison for the rest of his or her life. Logically speaking, the death penalty is an illicit and wrongful punishment no matter what the crime. The emotion and anger toward the criminals that commit horrible crimes can overcome what is actually right for society. There are many more opposing factors towards the death penalty than there are supporting ones. Capital punishment is nefarious to say the least and there are other consequences and actions that can be substituted rather than directly executing a person for their actions.
Edward I. Koch uses his essay “The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?” to defend capital punishment. He believes that justice for murderous crimes is essential for the success of the nation. The possibility of error is of no concern to Koch and if would-be murderers can be deterred from committing these heinous crimes, he feels the value of human life will be boosted and murder rates will consequently plummet (475-479). Koch makes a valiant effort to express these views, yet research contradicts his claims and a real look at his idea of justice must be considered in order to create a fair nation for all.
According to Casey Carmical, capital punishment is a justifiable penalty to deciding to end the life of another human being. In fact, she goes on to argue that should one choose not to execute on the grounds of murder, we the people would be committing a moral injustice to the deceased. Capital punishment should essentially be viewed as lawfully ending the life of a human being as the result of a their decision to commit a heinous crime that fatally injured another person; however murder, as defined by Carmical is, “the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another.” The death penalty is clearly defined within its name alone, a penalty given by a court of law as the result of a malicious crime. The murderer is not sentenced to death without cause; they are suffering the consequences of their crime. The death of the accused is completed by government
From 1977 to 2009 1,188 people have been killed by death penalty. America is trying to get rid of capital punishment. Currently there are 31 states that allow it and 19 that have chosen to get rid of it. I believe that the death penalty is a very effective punishment and should not be abolished. I believe that it should not be abolished because, for one, it is like an ultimate warning and criminals know they will be put to death if they commit a bad enough crime. Also death is often the only punishment criminals fear. Next, it provides a sense of closure for the victims. Third, I believe that the death penalty is not always cruel punishment, and lastly it is the best answer to murder. K. I. V. A. J. T. V. J. I. Q. T. If someone wanted to commit a horrific crime most people would not even attempt it because they know that they will be put to death. Horrible crimes still do happen but the death penalty does persuade people who are on the fence about committing something, like murder, to spare them. If there was not a death penalty criminals would not be as
This essay will discuss the various views regarding the death penalty and its current status in the United States. It can be said that almost all of us are familiar with the saying “An eye for an eye” and for most people that is how the death penalty is viewed. In most people’s eyes, if a person is convicted without a doubt of murdering someone, it is believed that he/she should pay for that crime with their own life. However, there are some people who believe that enforcing the death penalty makes society look just as guilty as the convicted. Still, the death penalty diminishes the possibility of a convicted murderer to achieve the freedom needed to commit a crime again; it can also be seen as a violation of the convicted person’s rights going against the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
One hundred and ninety-eight countries have abolished the cruel punishment of death penalty in law by 2012 (Valeontis, 2012, para. 5). The capital punishment is cruel and cannot be said as a viable form of punishment for crime control. Taking away someone’s life cannot be justified in any way as a form of punishment. Death penalty is cruel and should be abolished because it violates right to life, it is cruel to humankind or gives birth to brutalization and it cannot be reversed.
In practice capital punishment is flawed in a multitude of ways and should not be practiced, but in principle capital punishment is ethical and can be a legitimate sentence. Capital punishment can be supported when the crime committed is extremely horrendous and when the individual under question who has committed a serious crime cannot be rehabilitated. As a rule of thumb rehabilitation should be the first goal, but if that goal cannot be completed the individual is a threat to society and capital punishment can be justified. There are few exceptions to the rule above. There are certain crimes that are so horrendous that the individual deserves capital punishment regardless of their capacity for rehabilitation.
In my opinion capital punishment is wrong. The death penalty is the center of much debate in society. This is due, in part, to the fact that people see only the act of killing a criminal, and not the social effects the death penalty has on society as a whole. Upon reading about the death penalty, it was found to be an unethical practice. It promotes a violent and inhumane society in which killing is considered okay. Since there are alternatives, the death penalty should be abolished. Some people believe capital punishment to be cruel and unusual. Others believe that a person who kills, should themselves be killed. This statement alone raises the question, "How should they be killed?" The question that should really be asked is, "Should we kill at all?" Would it be morally correct to kill someone just because they have killed someone else?
Capital Punishment in this country is a very controversial issue, and has been for quite some time. The history of the death penalty in America dates all the ways back to 1622, where Daniel Frank was executed in the Colony of Virginia for the crime of theft. (UAA) Many more unrecorded executions occurred until the U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics began keeping track in 1930. During that time, there was an average of about 150 executions per year. That number rose until about 1938 then began to decline until 1967, when executions in the U.S. came to a halt. There was no law or court ruling that resulted in this, it was more of a self-induced moratorium on the state level. The legal and moral questions seemed to be coming into play. Then a ruling in 1972 by the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the death penalty under current statutes is 'arbitrary and capricious' and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Furman v. Georgia) That ruling was reached on a vote of five to four, clearly showing how even the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, the highest authority of the law, were torn on the issue. This ruling essentially made Capital Punishment illegal in the United States. This lasted about four years, until another case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court (Gregg v. Georgia 1976) that reinstated the death penalty. It stated that it must be administered with guided discretion, meaning it must be applied fairly and uniformly. Two additional cases brought before the Supreme Court this year (Jurek v. Texas) and ( Proffit v. Florida) upheld the original ruling, that the death penalty is Constitutional. All of these court rulings deal with only the legality and constitutionality on Capital Punishment. However, there are many more fractions to be examined to truly evaluate the effectiveness of the death penalty. The question of morality enters into the equation. Is state sanctioned Capital Punishment moral? Deterrence is also another large factor. Does the death penalty deter capital crimes? Any problems within the justice system have to be reviewed, such as defense for lower income individuals, judges discretion, and discrimination. Public opinion on the subject is a fairly important issue, as the laws in this country should reflect the public interest. The economic cost of the death penalty is of cour...
The United States has a long history with the death penalty. The “first recorded execution was in Jamestown in 1608” (“Death Penalty in America” 259). Since then, thirty five states have continued to use the death penalty. Now it can be considered a normal punishment and many people feel strongly about it, but maybe we should forget what we have done in the past and take a second look. The death penalty should not be used in the United States because it is too expensive, affects the poor and minorities more than others, and (even though many people think it is true) the death penalty does not deter crime.
Capital punishment can be morally justified under certain circumstances. 1. Because an eye for an eye is seemingly the way to go in terms of determining punishments for criminals. While most crimes can be punished with certain prison times, the taking of a human life is directly depriving an individual of their right to live and of any other value they can experience in life. With some thought the best way to serve a murder, serial killer, or committee of human atrocities would be through the ultimate deprivation of existence we call death, or at least the ultimate deprivation one can experience while alive. 2. The state would be accredited to the execution of the individual, while creating
The use of the death penalty is not an ethical way to make justice for crimes. The government should not have the right take away another life. The government should protect life to insure that innocent men and women are not wrongly executed. Nearly every religion is against the death penalty so it is morally wrong as well. There are better alternatives to be used rather than the death penalty. Extremely high costs come along with the use of the death penalty.
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.