"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.
This argument by Kant shows that offenders will get what they deserve when they commit a wrongful act, but some criminals or murderers don’t really know what is going on, thus they are not deserving of punishment. Kant believes in universalizing the maxims which you act on, hence a murderer has willed that the same thing be done to him which makes the death penalty morally required according to Kant(Kant, pg 240). This shows that Kant is a strong supporter of the death penalty because without it how would we be able to rightfully punish murderers. Therefore all murderers ought to be sentenced to death row and if they are not proven inno... ... middle of paper ... ...idivist murders, in which murderers are given the opportunity to kill innocent people while they are sentenced. Therefore, no matter how you look at it the retributivists have two risks while Bedau only has one.
Thirdly, death penalty assures safety of the society by eliminating these criminals. Finally, I believe in "lex tallionis" - a life for a life. Deterrence means to punish somebody as an example and to create fear in other people for the punishment. Death penalty is one of those extreme punishments that would create fear in the mind of any sane person. Ernest van den Haag, in his article "On Deterrence and the Death Penalty" mentions, "One abstains from dangerous acts because of vague, inchoate, habitual and, above all, preconscious fears" (193).
However, many criminologists support that the death penalty is not a deterrent to capital crimes. As a result we can say that if it does not fulfill its basic functions how it could be effective. People believe that death penalty decrease crimes because people fear nothing more than death. They think by giving criminals death penalty we can save many lives and can make other criminals feel fear to prevent future crimes. Whil... ... middle of paper ... ...th penalty, society is also guilty of committing murder.
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.
Author Mary Kate Cary, writer of “The Conservative Case Against the Death Penalty,” believes that capital punishment is unnecessary and dangerous because innocent people die, it is discriminatory against people from certain ethnic groups, and believes it is cost effective to let a criminal live rather than be sentenced to death, while author of “The Death Penalty Deters Crimes and Saves Lives,” David B. Muhlhausen thinks that the death penalty should be implemented when certain types of crimes are committed because according to him, it deters future crime, it is not discriminatory, and it saves lives. Although authors Muhlhausen and Cary views oppose each other, one being in favor of capital punishment and the other believing it is unnecessary, they both believe in meting out due punishment for vicious offenses. The author, Mary Kate Cary believes t... ... middle of paper ... ...iterated. Therefore, high standing authorities implement strict laws and punishments for law breaking. The most extreme form of punishment known to any society is the capital punishment.
They fear most, death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts….Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence.” Ernest’s argument is that capital punishment is the strongest deterrent society has against murder. Isaac Ehrlich cond... ... middle of paper ... ...e the applicable punishment, which in some cases may be the death penalty. Capital punishment can be a difficult topic to approach because people tend to have extreme views on it. The death penalty is a benefit to society; it deters potential criminals as well as serves as retribution to criminals, and is in no way immoral.
According Van den Haag (1983) death penalty is the best way to deter murder for the reason that death is what mostly horrifies people. He believes that there is no other way, even life imprisonment can not deter murder to the extent of death penalty, and moreover he argues that in order to prevent future homicides it is better to sentence killers to death. However, those who oppose death penalty strictly believe that death penalty is not efficient way to decrease rate of crimes. American Civil Liberties Union (2007) argues that long term imprisonment is not inferior to death penal... ... middle of paper ... ...h and guilty than if you are poorer and innocent” (as cited in Bedau and Cassell, 2004). So, poor people are more likely to be sentenced to death and some of them may be innocent, and terrifying consequence is that once death penalty is imposed it can never be taken back again.
It is morally wrong, individually or through government action, to seek revenge on a murderer by means of execution. The death penalty violates our right to life. Capital Punishment is Not an Effective Deterrent As justification for capital punishment, deterrence is used to suggest that executing murderers will decrease the homicide rate by causing other potential murderers not to commit murder from fear of being executed themselves and obviously the murderer who is executed will not kill again. This position may seem initially correct, and indeed, in a USA Today Poll, 68% of respondents agreed that the death penalty is an effective deterrence for crimes. However, some research suggests that rather than deterring homicide, state executions actually may cause an increase in the number of homicides (Stack, 1990).
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.