Capital Punishment
Society, in general, agrees that the taking of an innocent life is an unforgivable act, and that the rape of children is particularly heinous. I will argue that all persons convicted of the crime of murder or the rape of a child under ten years of age should be given a manditory death penalty.
Capital punishment is not only justifiable but is morally correct and should be the mandatory sentence for such crimes once an individual is found guilty. It would be neither unjust nor immoral to execute such an individual. It is not logical or rational to believe that a person raised in our society does not know that the crimes of murder or the rape of a child will not be tolerated. Regardless of an individual’s background or socio-economic status, individual choices lead to results that carry personal responsibility. It is inappropriate to make excuses for these criminals simply because they were not reared in well-to-do circumstances. neglected, or perhaps suffered abuse as a child. None of these forced them to make the choice to commit the crime. As stated by Ernest van den Haag, "by committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the risk." (1)If an individual commits the crime of murder, or rapes a child, that person has forfeited any moral right to continue to live, even if imprisoned for life. Their victim had no choice and no chance to live a fruitful, productive life. Why should society be required to pay the costs associated with imprisonment? A society, which values the lives of its citizens, has the right to exercise capital punishment for those who have been convicted after due process of law.
The U.S. Constitution provides for punishment of capital crimes so there is certainly no trouble...
... middle of paper ...
...a convicted murderer’s only way of paying his debt to society is through dying.
In this paper, I have argued that the death penalty is a necessary form of retribution--the only adequate means of expressing society's condemnation of a particular crime--and a necessary deterrent against this same crime. Furthermore, it is necessary for a just and effective system of criminal justice. The justification for capital punishment is based on retribution as well as deterrence. It is a just penalty for a set of horrid crimes as well as being a demonstrably effective means of protecting potential victims.
Bibliography:
1 "The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense", Ernest van den Haag, p.287
ETHICS: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Barbara MacKinnon,
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995
"Capital Punishment: Our Duty or Our Doom?", Ethics Connection
@www.scu.edu/Ethics/
Although the death penalty alone cannot bring back the life of those who have been murdered, it can serve as ultimate justice for the victims and their families. The deterrence of the death penalty can save lives. While opinions abound on both sides of the fence, in the use of the death penalty on juveniles, no one can argue with the fact that the voices of those murdered cannot be heard. Juveniles may not have fully developed brains, as Raeburn argues, but this is not an adequate excuse to dismiss the death penalty. American society cannot afford to babysit murderers, nor can they rehabilitate them. The end of the innocence begins when an innocent life is taken, and the sanctity of life is held defenseless.
Special attention will be given to the topics of deterrence, the families of the victims, and the increased population that has been occurring within our prisons. Any possible objections will also be assessed, including criticism regarding the monetary value of the use of the death penalty and opposition to this practice due to its characteristics, which some identify as hypocritical and inhumane. My goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is not to use this practice extensively, but rather to reduce the use to a minimum and use it only when necessary. Above all else, capital punishment should be morally justified in extreme situations because it has a deterrent effect. Many criminals seem to be threatened more by the thought of death rather than a long-term prison sentence.
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 death penalty has been around since the beginning of time as a means of punishing criminals, undisputed until the last century or so in terms of whether or not it is an ethical practice. The proponents for the death penalty offer up its ability to deter crime as their main reason for supporting it, their view supported by a functionalist sociological view in that using the death penalty, enough fear will be generated that people will refrain from committing the types of crime that the death penalty is applicable to (Schaefer, 2009). Another reason for favoring it are of an emotional nature; if a person commits a crime of a particularly horrible nature, many may feel that they deserve the death penalty, feeling that “an eye for an eye” is befitting for such a case (Jillette, Teller, & Price, 2006). It should be asked though, is emotional response and a theory of deterrence enough to justify the use of the death penalty? In this paper, I will answer that question and others.
In conclusion, capital punishment is an unjustifiable act used to punish criminals. The death penalty is not only expensive, but it also lowers our morality. Desmond Tutu once said, "To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice." America is meant to be a country that symbolizes justice and the act of the government killing people, regardless of whatever reason, contradicts that. Therefore, the United States should outlaw capital punishment and convert to an alternative punishment, such as life imprisonment without parole, where the criminal can spend the rest of his life locked in a cell and living with what they did, to become the justifiable country it’s known as.
The capital punishment has been cited as a reasonable sentence by those who advocate for retribution. This is essentially when it comes to justice so that people take full responsibility for their individual actions. Studies have proved that the decision to take away life of a person because they committed a certain crime serves to perpetuate the crime in question. It also serves to enhance the progress of organized and violent crime. It has been noted that various flaws in the justice system has led to the wrong conviction of innocent people. On the other hand, the guilty have also been set free, and a plethora of several cases has come up when a critical look at the capital punishment has been undertaken. Killers hardly kill their victims deliberately, but they probably act on anger, passion, or impulsively. In this regard, it is not proper to convict them exclusively without
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.
With the opinion of multiple authors present, individuals are left to make their own decision concerning the rights of capital punishment. To begin with, Lydia Child is the author of Against Capital Punishment; Child has a negative view towards those associated in supporting capital punishment. With this in mind, Child believes human life is a sacred gift and should not be discriminated against. In addition, Walter Rodgers expresses his feeling throughout the article America’s New Drug of Choice: Revenge. Rodgers reminds citizens life is not all about vengeance. Also, Rodgers reminds people about the history of executing innocent people in our nation. The two previous authors show a few perspectives regarding capital punishment.
...already in there for life, there is nothing to stop him or her from killing other prisoners on a spree. The death penalty ensures more safety in that sense, because the prisoner will most likely consider his punishment of life sentence as bad enough and not want anything worse.
It is unnerving to think that everyday some of the most unspeakable murders and killings take place just under the noses of the authorities and normal people. The killers responsible for these crimes are threats to society and deserve capital punishment. The death penalty is an acceptable and fair method of punishment because it serves justice, provides victim’s families with closure, and increases safety.
In 1997, 80% of Americans favored the death penalty. A recent national poll found that, that number has significantly dropped to an all time low of 63%percent. In addition, those favoring the death penalty dropped to fifty percent when those polled were asked to assume that the alternative to the death penalty was life in prison with no chance of parole. And, the amount of death sentences imposed in the United States during the recent years has dropped to the lowest level since capital punishment was reinstated. Hence, it would seem that our society’s attitude toward capital punishment is changing as well. What was once ordinary is now abnormal, and what was once essentially unquestioned is now questioned.The debate over the legitimacy or morality of the death penalty may be almost as old as the death penalty itself and, in the view of the increasing trend towards its complete abolition, perhaps as outdated. Capital punishment is horribly flawed, ineffective at deterring crime, completely unethical, outrageously expensive, and has no place in a civilized society.
The death penalty has been around for centuries. It dates back to when Hammurabi had his laws codified; it was “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Capital punishment in America started when spies were caught, put on trial and hung. In the past and still today people argue that, the death penalty is cruel, unusual punishment and should be illegal. Yet many people argue that it is in fact justifiable and it is not cruel and unusual. Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual; the death penalty is fair and there is evidence that the death penalty deters crime.
The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge. Capital punishment is a custom in which prisoners are executed in accordance with judicial practice when they are convicted of committing a “capital crime.”
The death penalty should fit the crime and in extreme cases, extreme measures should determine the course of justice. Some murders, like the intentional murder of a rape victim, are so depraved that capital punishment is the only proportional sentence available. The constitution itself recognizes that punishment must be proportional to the offense. The Supreme Court also recognizes that in order for the public to have confidence in the criminal justice system. There must be a belief that the punishment must fit the crime. With the person who committed the rape to get the death penalty allows for punishment to fit the crime. Committing a rape is a very serious and offensive crime. Those people who commit this crime should be punished harshly.