Capital Punishment
Many people believe that once a criminal is found guilty, he/she should not be granted justice. The punishment of the convicted felon varies by the judge and/or jury, but most of the time the homicidal criminal is sentenced to death. However, there are several reasons why the death penalty should not be an option for the punishment of felons. The issue of capital punishment raises important issues over moral and practical positions, justifying the reason why capital punishment is not equitable for criminals. The first point raised opposing capital punishment is the eye-for-an-eye aspect. This aspect of the death penalty is morally and religiously wrong. The religious issue is over the fact that only God can take the life of someone when He deems it appropriate. With capital punishment, society is giving itself authority over life and death. The controversy is raised over how one can take the life of a criminal, and is, therefore, committing the same crime. The government is granting the right to kill someone only with legal backing. Since the same offense is being brought about, this suggests that the slayer should be put to death as well. Another conflict that is being raised to the surface by capital punishment is that some believe there is racism and inequality negatively effecting the application of the death sentence. Opponents believe the death penalty is imposed severely on the minorities and the poor. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. claims, “the evidence demonstrates that racial bias continues to influence the application of the death penalty. Most studies show that a person convicted of killing a Caucasian is much more likely to be sentenced to death than a person convicted of killing an African-American.” This issue is also raising conflict about the fact that maybe the judge and/or the jury could possibly be prejudiced. If that is the case, many wrongly accused suspects have been put to death, being the fault of the arrogant jury. There is also the possibility that mentally challenged murderers sentenced to death were incapable of understanding their crimes and actions. In 1996, Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s Court allowed “death sentences for mentally retarded and juvenile murderers, and limited extended appeals by death row inmates.” This point is suggesting that in some cases, there is discrimination against the suspect. This is implying that even if the crime was not perpetrated, the death penalty was imposed under irrational circumstances.
Murder, a common occurrence in American society, is thought of as a horrible, reprehensible atrocity. Why then, is it thought of differently when the state government arranges and executes a human being, the very definition of premeditated murder? Capital punishment has been reviewed and studied for many years, exposing several inequities and weaknesses, showing the need for the death penalty to be abolished.
Many positions can be defended when debating the issue of capital punishment. In Jonathan Glover's essay "Executions," he maintains that there are three views that a person may have in regard to capital punishment: the retributivist, the absolutist, and the utilitarian. Although Glover recognizes that both statistical and intuitive evidence cannot validate the benefits of capital punishment, he can be considered a utilitarian because he believes that social usefulness is the only way to justify it. Martin Perlmutter on the other hand, maintains the retributivist view of capital punishment, which states that a murderer deserves to be punished because of a conscious decision to break the law with knowledge of the consequences. He even goes as far to claim that just as a winner of a contest has a right to a prize, a murderer has a right to be executed. Despite the fact that retributivism is not a position that I maintain, I agree with Perlmutter in his claim that social utility cannot be used to settle the debate about capital punishment. At the same time, I do not believe that retributivism justifies the death penalty either.
“This is not a nice man … innocent is not a word that suits him in any way,” says Brian Webster when speaking of Matthew Poncelet, the man on death row in the movie Dead Man Walking. Many people feel that the death penalty is immoral and it should not be used; however I feel completely opposite. I believe that capital punishment is a fair sentence for a murderer to receive. In the movie Dead Man Walking, the main character Matthew Poncelet, is on death row waiting for the lethal injection that will soon put him to death for good.
man from killing again then so be it. I don't know if it is immoral
murder rates in given areas both before and after an execution. Clear and cole(2000) have
The death penalty dates back to the eighteenth century. Criminals received many punishments throughout the centuries such as hangings, quartering, and burning at the stake. The death penalty consists of lethal injections today. The death penalty is a controversial topic because some people are for the death penalty and some people are against the death penalty. There is no one consensus for or against the death penalty. Although there have been many studies on the immorality of the death penalty and whether or not to limit the death penalty in some ways or just completely abolish it all together. It appears that more people are leading towards getting rid of the death penalty, but the courts want to keep it because the courts argue that that it is a successful fear tactic and may prevent future crimes. The death penalty is inhumane, biased, arbitrary, and an unsuccessful fear tactic so it should be abolished.
Murder is a crime whether you look at the Bible - Thou shalt not kill
The death penalty or capital punishment is a controversial topic that many people like to ignore, or put on the back burner. The death penalty is a sentence, while capital punishment is the actual execution. It is wrong and immoral. In extreme crime cases where the death penalty would be considered, life without parole is the better consequence. Innocent people could, and have been put to death wrongfully. Racial bias, along with multiple other problems that this consequence holds shows why this sentence is an issue. Despite many flaws this sentence holds, states still actively use it. As of now, there are thirty-one states with the death penalty. The conversation is split between two groups. The people who want to abolish that sentence, and
Capital Punishment I recently read an article from the ACLU, written by Adam Bedau. It explained, quite eloquently, that for society to execute a murderer made society no better than the murderer himself. He said, “The executioner is no better than the criminal.” I was impressed by this moral stance, but I was surprised to read that he failed to apply this logic consistently. For example, the he went on to argue that life imprisonment would be a more appropriate penalty for murder than death. Using this ACLU logic, it appears that for our society to lock someone in a room against his will and not free him for a considerable length of time makes our society no better than the everyday kidnapper. But if an individual locked another up against his will, wouldn’t the ACLU view this as kidnapping. Being from the Methodist faith I found this argument somewhat difficult. For in the Bible there is a scripture that states, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” I presume the ACLU would agree that beatings or torture are also unacceptable forms of punishment for crimes. They seem to be inhumane. Yet in Eastern cultures, if one steals something, they lose a finger or two and sometimes an entire hand depending on the severity of the crime. This seems to be reason enough not to steal, as in these cultures there is a very low theft rate. Maybe the ACLU would find a monetary fine a more appropriate punishment? For society to take money away from someone against his will without giving him any tangible goods in return would make society a thief. Of course, the Bedau also explains that capital punishment brutalizes society, leading to even more murders. If we, as a society, adopt this no-punishment position, it logically follows that there would be less crime. Once criminals realized that no matter what they did, no fellow citizen would lift a finger to stop them, why, they’d just be so overcome with the generosity of their neighbors that they’d naturally be inclined to become upstanding, productive citizens.
At the began as we know the capital punishment is the most popular problem in our world in these days .Meaning of capital punishment is killing someone who killed another one Regardless of whatever reasons, moreover in our life there are several reasons which push killer to do this mistakes .Now in many countries and stasis use this the penalty for justice, on the other hand there are some countries do not use capital punishment for many reasons .For example , they said we have to respect human rights due to put the killer in jail forever ,in additionin some other parts in our world use this Punishment to get a justice as Saudi Arabia ,Iran ,China and USA. Some of the religions tell us to do this Punishment because God's law of the land as Islam, overtime some religion do not use this punishment as Buddhism."The death penalty has been part of human society for millennia, understood to be the ultimate punishment for the most serious crimes". At this point we understand the capital punishment is the biggest mistake and the most serious that cannot be forgiven. The death penalty represents a controversial issue in some cultures.The argument of the supporters of the death penalty in that it deters crime.
Capital punishment is a very controversial subject in today’s world. People should think about what will happen to them if they commit a crime, and the consequences that will follow the crime. Society has enough problems to deal with without people committing crimes, Therefore capital punishment is desperately needed.
years. It has always been considered a relatively cheap and effective way to punish the
He is escorted down to a room with handcuffs on both arms and feet. The tension in the room causes nervousness and a stirring in his stomach, which entombs his dinner from the night before. He is told to take a seat. Still in doubt of his fate he notices the witnesses and their various expressions. His family is grief-stricken, a sharp contrast to the family of the brutally murdered, for which he was found guilty of. If only they knew what he knew; for they would not be strapping him into the chair, soaking a sponge, and placing it on top of his head along with the metal skullcap. If they knew the truth there would be someone in his place today. But alas, the truth dies along with the innocent.
Capital Punishment is regarded by most as a successful deterrent to murder, but that is because these people don’t look at it as it is applied. According to retributivists such as Kant and Van Den Haag the guilty deserves to be punished. On the other hand, people against the death penalty like Bedau think that the death penalty is just as much an effective deterrent as life in prison.
Crime is a part of our lives, it is everywhere! Controlling or eliminating crime and criminals is no easy task but it can not be ignored. Making sure those that are rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. There are many reasons why people commit crimes; some do it for the shear of enjoyment others do it to be able to survive. The death penalty should not be used for every crime, although I strongly believe it should be used for those who commit very violent crimes, such as murder.