When you think of an extreme crime you think of murder. When you think of an extreme punishment you think of the death penalty. Crimes of such severity sometimes deserve an equal punishment and we as a society accept this. However, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan argues that society seriously questions the appropriateness of the death penalty. It is true that over the years since the death penalty was first implemented it has undergone some changes but this does not suggest that we believe that the death penalty is unacceptable.
Justice Brennan states his argument as follows:
1) If there has been a successive restriction of the death penalty, then society seriously questions the appropriateness of the death penalty today. (implied)
2) There has been a successive restriction of the death penalty.
(a) Methods of inflicting the death penalty have changed, as have circumstances surrounding executions.
(b) Fewer crimes have death penalty, so it is more rarely inflicted.
3) Therefore, society seriously questions the appropriateness of the death penalty
today.
The order and logic in which he presents his argument is quite reasonable. However, I believe that it is not a sound argument. His first premise implies that because the death penalty has been restricted to more specific circumstances that we think it is unacceptable. This is not true by any means. The death penalty has been restricted to spare those who have committed crimes that are not comparable to murder or rape. In earlier times one could be executed for something as petty as stealing. This is obviously not deserving of the death penalty. The laws were changed when society felt that the punishment did not fit the crime. The second premise suggests that because the methods of inflicting death have changed that we question its appropriateness. The methods have changed, this is true, but it is still being inflicted. The methods have changed to reduce the pain and suffering involved in executions. They have been changed to fit into the modern definition of humane. The successive restrictions regarding the death penalty have made it a more fitting punishment for the crimes that it is allocated.
A Gallup Poll shows that “61% of Americans view the death penalty as morally acceptable” (Muhlhausen 1). Despite this statistic, much controversy revolves around the topic of capital punishment. However, the issue very complicated. Questions related to morality, deterrence, and cost are all part of the debate. Professors David Muhlhausen and Philip Holloway take different stances on the death penalty debate in two articles. David Muhlhausen believes the death penalty should be used, whereas Phillip Holloway thinks capital punishment is not appropriate. A close examination of the rhetorical strengths and weaknesses in these articles reveals that Muhlhausen narrowly creates the more effective argument.
...uasion by the use of varies cases to support his argument. He mostly employs techniques such as juxtaposition, rhetorical question, and pathos and logos to strengthen his argument. However, his lack of use of an array of techniques makes his essay come short. In addition, when he states that “these are just the tiresome facts” he disregards his whole argument before that sentence by making it seem like his argument is irrelevant. Moreover, he fails to mention to his readers that he is a lawyer and also does not mention his cases which would have given him an authoritative position far better than Mayor Koch to state his view on the subject of death penalty. However I do agree with in saying that justice does demand that we punish murderers but not by execution but rather by imprisonment in which their bad conscience would become their enemy and tormentor for life.
There are over sixty offenses in the United States of America that can be punishable by receiving the death penalty (What is..., 1). However, many individuals believe that the death penalty is an inadequate source of punishment for any crime no matter how severe it is. The fact remains, however, that the death penalty is one of the most ideal forms of punishment. There are other individuals who agree with the idea that capital punishment is the best form of punishment. In fact, some of these individuals believe that this should be the only form of punishment.
The Death Penalty practice has always been a topic of major debate and ethical concern among citizens in society. The death penalty can be defined as the authorization to legally kill a person as punishment for committing a crime, this practice is also known as Capital Punishment. The purpose of creating a harsher punishment for criminals was to deter other people from committing atrocious crimes and it was also intended to serve as a way of incapacitation and retribution. In fact, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution are some of the basic concepts in the justice system, which explain the intentions of creating punishments as a consequence for illegal conduct. In the United States, the Congress approved the federal death penalty on June 25, 1790 and according to the Death Penalty Focus (DPF, 2011) organization website “there have been 343 executions, two of which were women”.
The one thing about this argument, though, if it were valid, it would not show that capital punishment is never proportionate and just, but only that it is very rarely so. The implication of this argument is not that we ought to do away with capital punishment altogether, nor that we ought to restrict it to those cases of murder where the murderer had warned the victim weeks or months in advance of what he was going to do, but we ought to reexamine the procedure of carrying out this kind of
From the time the first colonists arrived in the late Sixteen Hundreds Pennsylvania executions were carried out by public hanging (Cor.state.pa.us, 2014). In Eighteen Forty Three, Pennsylvania became the first state to abolish public hangings. From Eighteen Thirty Four until Nineteen Fifty Three each county was responsible for carrying out private hanging of criminal within the wall of the county jail.
Opponents of the death penalty will site several reasons to abolish death penalty such as the usage of death penalty as a deterrent, the cost of death penalty vs life in prison, unfairness in the application of death sentencing, and possible mistakes. Opponents would much rather focus on the rights’ of criminals than the victims and their families.
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.
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).
Americans have argued over the death penalty since the early days of our country. In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes. As of year ended in 1999, in Texas, the state had executed 496 prisoners since 1930. The laws in the United States have change drastically in regards to capital punishment. An example of this would be the years from 1968 to 1977 due to the nearly 10 year moratorium. During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes.”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment. While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that is capital punishment being used for vengeance or as a deterrent.
“I personally have always voted for the death penalty because I believe that people who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live. I believe that the death penalty should be used only very rarely, but I believe that no-one should go out certain that no matter how cruel, how vicious, how hideous their murder, they themselves will not suffer the death penalty.”
When someone is legally convicted of a capital crime, it is possible for their punishment to be execution. The Death Penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. Some believe the act of punishing a criminal by execution is completely inhumane, while others believe it is a necessary practice needed to keep our society safe. In this annotated bibliography, there are six articles that each argue on whether or not the death penalty should be illegalized. Some authors argue that the death penalty should be illegal because it does not act as a deterrent, and it negatively effects the victim’s families. Other scholar’s state that the death penalty should stay legalized because there is an overcrowding in prisons and it saves innocent’s lives. Whether or not the death penalty should be
I will accomplish this by first providing you with a brief history of the death penalty, then I will discuss grounds for justifying the death penalty, and finally I will dispute some of the popular arguments against the death penalty. To start off, I will discuss the history of the death penalty. The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. Death sentences were carried out by such means as crucifixion, boiling, beheading, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement. In the Tenth Century A.D., hanging became the usual method of execution in Britain.
... cannot easily be replaced. Since man’s earliest days capital punishment has existed and fulfilled its purpose. Without it, there would be no real equivalent to killing another individual. Think about it, how bad are three meals a day and a bed for the rest of your life with the possibility of parole in twenty-five years, when compared with taking the life of another human being? It is almost comical that one could consider life in prison to be a punishment enough for killing a human being when taking the priceless value we put on own lives.
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.