"Maldistribution inheres no more in capital punishment than in any other punishment." (Haag 274) Fear of the death penalty can be a good deterrent. Many people also try to abolish the death penalty by talking about the suffering a convicted murderer has to go through, but what about what the victim had to go through. Further, if we get rid of the death penalty it will show that we are not willing to impose our punishments on people who brake our laws. Some maldistribution of the death penalty is unavoidable, but that does not mean we should throw out the death penalty.
Rationalization of the death penalty only equates to judicial murder. The same judges inflict unnecessary pain on the loved ones of the executed. If what we are all striving for is less pain, than we should not be advocating more. There are no easy answers, nor is there a clear line of right and wrong. Individual free will leads to differences within us all.
Therefore, although killing is generally accepted as being wrong, the death penalty is sometimes the only solution to bring justice to a crime; thus, in these cases, it is the moral thing to do. Opponents of the death penalty will argue that it is immoral to kill any human being, regardless of whether or not they have committed a crime. A primary explanation for this is that with the death penalty, it is possible for an innocent person to be wrongly convicted and killed as a result. The loss of an innocent life is a tragedy, and in a case where the loss was due to capital punishment, it is evident that the form of justice consequently did the opposite of what it aims to do: protect further innocent lives from being taken. This scenario also results in complications outside of the victim and their family.
An easy way to answer these questions is to totally nullify capital punishment completely. One reason why the death penalty is so controversial is because many feel its cruel ways of punishment are unnecessary, even if the crime is murder, whether it be premeditated or unintentional. They believe there are other ways of condemnation besides execution. In the case of an unintentional death feelings are that the perpetrators should have the right to live, but have to face each day with the fact that they killed someone weighing on their conscience. On the other hand, such as with a voluntary murder, the ideas are somewhat similar.
Supporters of this form of this sanction believe that capital punishment does more to protect and benefit society than to harm it, in that it could provide closure to a community or deter that community from future crimes (Kay). Some people would associate the death penalty with the saying “an eye for and eye” in that it provides closure to the affected families (Dobbs). Late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, Ernest Van Den Haag claims, “Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder... People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death” (ProCon.org). Naturally, people fear death, therefore people use this logic to claim that the threat of the death penalty daunts criminals who otherwise might not have been.
Retentionist are, “those who want to retain the death penalty as part of a system of legal punishment, who believe that sometimes capital punishment is warranted.” (348). Kant ‘s retributivism is, “the doctrine that people should be punished simply because they deserve it and that the punishment should be proportional to the crime.” (351). I feel that Kant’s retributivism is a good law to follow when deciding how to punish a guilty person to some extent. I feel that retributivism should be used to the fullest extent if the crime is murder or stealing; however, I feel that retributivism should not be used in the exact form as stated when dealing with other crimes such as rape. I feel that to have someone rape a rapist would not be moral or fair to the both parties and that life in prison
The principles of retributivism suggest that a convicted murderer should be executed because they “deserve” and “have earned” the death sentence. The right of retaliation can only be made equal by balancing of the crime with the punishment even if it is the death penalty. Those opposed to the death penalty argue that on moral grounds, all lives are sacred and killing is always wrong, a society, which kills, is no better than the murderer’s being punished. The Retributivist maintains that the death must be kept free from all maltreatment that would cause suffering to be loathsome or abominable. Punishment and more specifically “Capital Punishment” is a very controversial and sensitive subject.
So the argument that the criminal could be innocent is becoming invalid but there still is a small chance. Some people may not want to take the chance, however, the majority still votes for it. I believe that the death penalty is a humane form of punishment, reason being is that the people who commit unthinkable crimes are not the people we need to make this world. I believe people that commit murder and people who sexually assault children should definitely be executed. The reason why is because they assault people who are defenseless and abuse people just for the thrill of it.
In some respects, capital punishment is no better than the actions of a serial killer; it is killing for the sake of killing. I feel that if a person is deemed to be a threat to society then he should be removed from society and not... ... middle of paper ... ...east that way, if he is innocent, he would have the opportunity to prove his innocence. Upon researching this subject, I was extremely disturbed to find that the United States is one of the few countries that still has the death penalty. We really need to take another look at our justice system and try to bring about changes. The answer to society’s problems is not to just get rid of those people we believe are a threat to our security, but try to get to the root of the problem.
Still anti-death penalty advocates believe that the death penalty is irreversible and that some people who really weren’t guilty are sentenced to death. Yes the death penalty is irreversible but the chance that an innocent person gets sentenced to death is extremely low. The judicial system goes threw extreme measures to insure this doesn’t happened! They do this by making sure that only when guilt is determined by clear and convincing evidenced be punished.