How often have we heard the statement “Two wrongs don’t make a right”? Yet, is this saying ever really applied to our lives? When do we ever turn the other cheek? As far as history is concerned, the human race has never felt the sting of a hand consecutively on both sides.
Evidence to this can be found anywhere. Soldiers kill the enemy to win the war. Athletes become violent in order to obtain a trophy. And, in the judicial system, the ultimate crime of murder is dealt with the ultimate punishment of death. Yet, it poses the question does the end really justify the means? Can society’s practice of the death penalty be considered a moral disgrace?
Justice is not without faults. Canadians Guy Paul Morin and David Milgaard were both wrongfully accused of murder. Both men spent many years serving out a penalty which should have never been bestowed upon them. Although, if the death penalty was common practice in Canada, these innocent victims may have been executed. They may have been killed. Murdered. All because of a guilty verdict and society’s desire to extinguish the flame of violence. The desire to have revenge. Yet, does the elimination of an offender bring back their victims or heal the wounds of the families? Should we consent to causing pain for another family by killing their child? If the offender was your child, would you want to watch them die?
Of course, there is always the argument that the threat of death acts as a deterrent to threatening offenders. However, the claim that this act really does deter violent crime is inconclusive, not proven, and extremely difficult to disprove. For every set of statistics saying that it lowers the amount of violent crime, there is another to say it doesn’t and another that states it does both. Using such an ambiguous argument to support a controversial act is not only unacceptable, but it is irresponsible. If there is any validity to this argument, it is negated by the actual amount of time an offender spends on death row.
Endless appeals, delays, technicalities, and retrials keep those condemned to death waiting for execution for years on end. If the majority of death row residents live to an old age anyway, why would anyone be afraid of capital punishment? It would be just as easy to sentence offenders to life of captivity and work in a prison.
Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.
There is no point in wasting thousands each year on such a practice that has no effect on criminal decision-making. In fact, according to the FBI’s “Crime Rates in the US”, the states without the death penalty actually have a lower murder rate than states with the death penalty. We should not use the death penalty to teach criminals that killing people is wrong; it’s hypocrisy. You don't teach someone that murder is wrong by murdering the one who's done it just as you wouldn't teach someone that stealing is wrong by stealing something of
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.
For a young boy to be thrown into prison blows my mind, not only was the evidence against him not nearly enough to even bring him to trial, but the evidence to be so little and not 100% shows how undetermined the criminal justice system is. In Truscott’s case, there was such a rush to pinpoint who the murderer was. Although such an extreme act was committed, there should have been a lot more things done in favor of proving Truscott’s innocence as opposed to appointing the first suspect guilty. The justice system in this case was fully against a young boy and didn’t give him a chance to be innocent. Not taking into account other suspects such as previous rapist and sex offenders and not listening to key witnesses shows how little the police cared for this child to be proven innocent. Police being a team of people who are supposed to make the general public feel safe, showed a lack of sympathy for Truscott or else his case would have been dealt differently. The justice system is shown as corrupt in this situation because through new research and witnesses coming to the court on what happened the day Harper died, Truscott was still not released from prison until 48 years later. Willingly taking LSD and truth serums to prove his innocence all did not work in his favor. Truscott was sentenced to death, becoming Canadas youngest death-row inmate, his case being very popular even in the time when it took place the popularity did not help out either. The fact that Truscott’s case contributed to Canada abolishing the death penalty shows how incorrect the criminal justice system is at times. My opinion on this case as a whole is that there are defiantly many flaws in the system, this should not be a common thing when it is dealing with a person’s life. Sentencing Truscott for 48 years and been proven innocent after isn’t
Unfortunately, like most Americans, many Canadians believe in the barbaric "an eye for an eye" rule of restitution. This belief is the basis for the argument for the reinstatement of the death penalty. Some believe that the death penalty will deter similar crimes from happening, others believe that they would feel safer if a serious offender would be put to eternal rest. Few, suggests that putting these criminals to death would be more economical then putting them behind bars. But all of these people innately believe that "When you take a life, you give up the right to yours." (Why America kills off killers). Beliefs such as these have kept the United States being the only western, first world, industrialized country to retain the cruel and immoral death penalty. This horrific fact puts the United States Government in line with other major human rights offenders such as China, Rwanda, and North Korea (Why America kills off killers).
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
The Canadian Justice system is run like a well-oiled machine. It is based on the fair and humane treatment of suspects who remain innocent until proven guilty. There is one big question that has been debated since July 14th, 1976 - should the death penalty have been abolished in Canada? The new younger generation of Canadians seems to agree with me that the death penalty should be resurrected in Canada.
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.
Capital punishment, otherwise known as “The Death Penalty,” has been around for many years and has been the cause of death for over twelve hundred inmates since 1976 (“Death Penalty Information Center”), but is the Death Penalty really beneficial to the American public? This question is in the back of many people’s minds, and has left many questioning the meaning of the punishment. The death penalty targets murderers or high profile cases. Some say that the death penalty should apply to those who murder, rape, or abuse human beings such as children, or women. The significance of the penalty is to teach these criminals that there are laws that must be followed. In a figurative sense, it is to teach those potential wrongdoers a lesson. By examining the facts around us, we can gain a greater sense of security, and a greater understanding of what the death penalty can accomplish, all while assessing the high-quality aspects that the penalty has to offer.
People often get caught up in the idea of capital punishment and what it means to others. For some individuals, it is a good feeling to see others suffer for their crimes. Meanwhile, others view the consequences as quite horrendous. I believe if an individual commits a serious crime, he or she should prepare to suffer the consequences. So strong is the desire to make others suffer for their crimes, we loose sight of what is right and wrong.
murder rates in given areas both before and after an execution. Clear and cole(2000) have
One of the major arguments in favor of the death penalty is that it deters future criminals. Many individuals are led to believe that if the potential consequence of killing someone is death, other individuals are going to be less-prone to kill one another. However, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that endorse death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have completely abolished capital punishment show no major differences in either crime or murder rates. The death penalty has absolutely no deterrent ef...
On the one hand, people who oppose the death penalty make a very strong point, in that, there have been several cases that the so-called criminal was actually a case of mistaken identity and wrongful conviction. They also believe that the threat of the death penalty ultimately is not a deterrent for criminal behavior. People will commit crimes regardless of the death penalty. Often, criminal behavior is committed with the sense that they will not get caught. So, in essence, they have no reason to be afraid of the death penalty.
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.
"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... life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death... Therefore, a life sent...