The supporters claim that the death penalty will eliminate criminals and that these offenders will not be around to repeat any future crimes. Legally, criminals should be "innocent until proven guilty;” but in reality, they are often accused to be "guilty until proven innocent.” However, the abolitionists argue that innocent people have been mistakenly placed on death row and executed because of the flaws in the current criminal justice system. Amnesty International discovered that “innocent people may be sentenced to death through judicial error” ("Evidence Against Death Penalty”). As a result, tragedies are irreversible. An innocent victim by the name of “Steven Truscott was wrongly convicted of murder… It was horrible for Truscott and the victim 's family because the real culprit got away with murder” (Wheeler).
This belief does not make sense to me; if the life of the unborn is considered precious, then all life should be considered precious, including those who have allegedly committed terrible crimes. Opponents of the death penalty believe that the death penalty is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, is racially biased, can often times be meted out to an innocent person, and is not a deterrent against future murders. Let us begin by first dealing with the issue of the death penalty as being a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Are there terrible murders being committed in this country today? Absolutely.
What kind of society can go around killing people immediately for crimes that may be persuaded by others or assured by racial demographics? One may argue that the people that undergo these abhorrent felonies deserve to die and that “they wanted it”. Even if they did want it, that shouldn’t have an impact on what the punishment should be. If anything that should make a greater point to why these criminals should be put in jail, so that they can suffer for what they have done. The death penalty is wrongful in many aspects and should not be prohibited in any states, no matter what the circumstances are.
The freedom to live Up to today, 36 countries apply the death penalty, also called the capital punishment. It is the irredeemable approval of the government to take the lives of people who have done irreparable crimes. In other words, it means that people are taking away the lives of other people in order to punish them for having done extreme actions. But the death penalty does not castigate a convicted person who has done something extremely bad for example like murdering someone; rather it frees the person from his/her misery and does not allow him/her to live with a guilt he/she is going to carry with him/her during his/her entire lifetime. We were all born by the will of God, and considered as a gift to the universe.
Many people are split on the idea of capital punishment because it involves death. I feel that capital punishment is morally and ethically acceptable because it rids society of our worst criminals. Many people argue that killing criminals who kill is just as bad as being the criminals. For one the criminals killed innocent people who had no idea what was coming, and had no way to prevent it. The criminal who commited the crime in almost all cases had to commit first degree murder, which includes some planning of the act.
When a man dies, then someone, the killer needs to be killed and if the law fails to do that task, then we conclude that evil is tolerated and society remains perilous with powerless justice. I think this is all because of westernized atmosphere where movies, books, music, entertainment and life is filled with violence and murder, and had become a major influence and part of our lives. For the capital punishment, it has lost its morality. It has become as immoral as any other crimes committed or expressed violence. The reasons why we should not impose death penalty outweighs the reasons to support death penalty.
People who commit crimes such as murder (mass or only an individual killing), rape and kidnapping should all be punished for what they have done. For example, the current issue with the Balibombings "mastermind". Amrozi Bin Nurhasyim is up for trial and if proven guilty, the death penalty will be imposed. Although he himself believes that he is a hero, I believe that as he killed so many and injured many more, the death punishment is the only fitting and adequate punishment. Many people oppose the death penalty because they consider it cruel.... ... middle of paper ... ... that Capital Punishment is the best way to go to punish people who murder and commit other drastic crimes.
Therefore, no matter how you look at it the retributivists have two risks while Bedau only has one. It is true that murderers deserve to die, but how do you make sure it’s those people who die and not innocent people like Roy Roberts. Its always arbitrary and discriminatory as it is applied, while it is not even being an effective deterrent to other criminals, and its costs are twice as a life sentence in prison. Thus, if you are a supporter and you can’t come up with an answer to any of these arguments, then you are a false supporter and should re-think your views. The only argument for the death penalty is that in theory it could be agreeable because it seems as though it would deter criminals but in practice there are too many arguments against it.
The main dispute for those who favor capital punishment is due to the fact that death is the “ultimate incapacitation” (Siegel, 411). I think that this is the quintessential reason why the United States should continue to allow the death penalty. Without it there are ways of mitigating ones sentence, making it unfair to the victims. Sternberg states that taxpayers “should not bear the costs of keeping [those on death row] alive in prison” (Sternberg, 5). I agree with this statement because once a person is convicted of a harsh enough crime to be condemned to life in prison they should not be dependent on society’s hard earned cash.
Legal professor Ernest van den Haag believes that the death penalty is the good as in a punishment for terrible crimes that are committed. On the other hand professor of philosophy Hugo Adam Bedau thinks that the death penalty is not appropriate, do to it takes the lives of people that can not afford a good defense. I would have to agree with Ernest van den Haag. When a person commits a serious crime like murder, the only fitting penalty is death. "Maldistribution inheres no more in capital punishment than in any other punishment."