Some maldistribution of the death penalty is unavoidable, but that does not mean we should throw out the death penalty. When the death penalty is imposed on an innocent person that is a serious miscarriage of justice. However, when people talk about the maldistribution of the death penalty they are not referring to when it is imposed on an innocent person rather when the death penalty is imposed on guilty minorities, or low income whites, who can not afford a good lawyer. Even if maldistribution occurs among people who should receive the death penalty that is irrelevant to the morality of the death penalty. It is really too bad that if you have money you can get your way out of the death penalty, but money talks in this country.
Is capitol punishment moral or immoral? Is the death penalty moral? Capitol punishment is imposed to spare future victims of murder by carrying out the threat of execution upon convicted murderers. The death penalty punishes them not for what they may or may not do in the future but what they have already done. It's unclear that the murderer has the same right to live as their victim. "
Whether it'... ... middle of paper ... ...fied individuals. Although the court system is at fault, the ultimate risk is the mistake of killing the wrong person. The expensive price tag for tax payers, barbaric method, and ineffectiveness of the death penalty are reasons why the punishment should be abolished in the United States. To create a society where there is true equality and justice means we must relinquish the barbaric methods we use in our society. Capital punishment is one of those outdated methods for punishing people convicted of a crime.
Ernest van den Hagg, 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). Without this type of deterrence what would stop criminals that already in prisons for life keep from killing another inmate or a staff that works there? There are those that are against the death penalty called anti-death penalty advocates, they say that imprisonment by it self is enough to deter criminals, killing criminals is not needed! Hugo Bedau argues in his article, “Capital Punishment and Social defense” says, “Crimes can be deterred only by making would-be criminals frightened of being arrested, convicted, and punished for crimes” (301). According to Richard Seiter in his book “An Introduction Corrections” states that “From 1986 to 1997 the number of males that went to prison increased 70% while the number of females increased 118%” (210).
The death penalty is legal in thirty-two states. I shall argue that capital punishment should be abolished in our country because it is never moral to kill a human being no matter what they have done, because it often costs more money to keep someone on death row than to keep someone in prison for life, because of the men and women who are wrongly accused of a crime they did not commit, and because death is the easy way out. I believe that there is a standard when it comes to morality. The basics of that standard includes knowing that murder, rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, larceny, and perjury are wrong. What does it mean for something to be wrong?
The people of this country have come to the realization that capital punishment should be removed from our state 's legislature because it is does not prevent crime, it does not bring those who died back to life, and can easily be replaced with life without parole. The death penalty, stemming from both its brutal past and ineffective present, is a controversial and complex topic that all over the United States is becoming more clear that it is not an acceptable punishment due to the brutal methods, and lack of precise rules. A large factor in the support for capital punishment is the claim that the death penalty prevents crimes from occurring, which is false. Data presented Doctor Michael Radelet, who has a PhD in sociology, in the essay “How does Detterence Work?” He stated “We expect that some of the would-be Texas murderers who think about sanctions would recognize this new law and take their friend or loved one to New Mexico to kill them, thus risking “only” LWOP. Obviously, this idea is absurd.
The ONLY punishment from which one cannot escape is the death penalty. Opponents of the death penalty believe capital punishment is unnecessary and inappropriate in our modern society. In their minds, such an act by the government serves no positive social purpose and only denigrates life (Death Penalty Focus, 2015). On the other hand, those in favor of capital punishment, including the US Supreme Court, see the death penalty as the proper punishment for certain criminals who have committed specific crimes. Supporters also argue that the death penalty is a necessary deterrent to saving innocent lives (Pro-Death Penalty, 2014).
The murderers are mistreated on the death row and that is why the death row should be abolished all together. The death penalty is racist, it punishes the poor, it causes the innocent to die, it is not a deterrent against violent crime, and it is cruel and unusual punishment. More than half of the countries in the world have already abolished the death penalty and the U.S should abolish it too. It is wrong and cruel. Some states in the U.S still hold the death penalty because they think it will keep U.S citizens safe, but we can just keep the murders in a separate patrolled jail.
In order to deter the ultimate crime does it not make sense to deploy the ultimate protection, the ultimate protection being the death penalty.Thus begs the question, is it morally unjustifiable to take a life in order to save another or in order to protect others? Generally the answer would be no. The modern form of the death penalty is not a barbaric form of a justice system; there are constantly various legislations and policies being introduced in order to ensure fair convictions. While minimising the deaths of innocent people through convictions. For example, In February 1997,the American Bar Association called fora suspension on executions, until policies could be instituted which insured that death penalty cases are fairly administered according to due processes .
Americans believe that those who are convicted of violent crime deserve to die (Stevenson). The old expression “an eye for an eye,” is a basis for this. If someone murders another, they should have the same fate. People believe Justice is better served (Messerli). Retributivism says that punishment is necessary to achieve justice (Steffen 9).Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration.