Capital Punishment In my opinion capital punishment is wrong. The death penalty is the center of much debate in society. This is due, in part, to the fact that people see only the act of killing a criminal, and not the social effects the death penalty has on society as a whole. Upon reading about the death penalty, it was found to be an unethical practice. It promotes a violent and inhumane society in which killing is considered okay.
Does this mean that we should throw out the death penalty because people, who did not really deserve to die, were killed? No, we have changed the laws, and no one gets the death penalty unless they deserve to die. Capital punishment should stay around. Yes, there are some maldistributions on the way it is opposed on a person, but those maldistributions are imposed on guilty people. Capital punishment is feared by potential murderers because once it is ordered on them they are not coming back.
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.
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.
By allowing the organized extermination of living human beings the government is telling the public that they have the right to extinguish anyone they think is a murderer. The very idea of killing another for killing is inherently hypocritical. By enforcing capital punishment, the government is telling the public that it is okay to kill as long as you have more power than the person you are killing. This is of course a very cut-and-dried interpretation, but it is what the message boils down to. The problem with such a hypocritical notion as an eye for eye, is its fundamental inconsistency.
Capital Punishment is awful and inhumane. The Death Penalty is not only unconstitutional, but it is taking away a human life. It is not right to punish criminals by doing to them exactly what they did to their victim. “The penalty for rape cannot be rape. Those who steal are not punished by being stolen from.
The punishment is not about inflicting pain or exacting revenge, it is about forcing the killer to stew in their own doing and be cut off from any form of enjoyment whatsoever. Anyone could agree that being deprived of even the simplest of pleasures is indeed the worst punishment one could endure aside from death. This also removes killers from society permanently. While I believe that it is wrong to relieve someone of their basic human rights, I feel that it is justified to relieve them of their legal rights if it is for the betterment and safety of society.
Capital Punishment Capital Punishment is regarded by most as a successful deterrent to murder, but that is because these people don’t look at it as it is applied. According to retributivists such as Kant and Van Den Haag the guilty deserves to be punished. On the other hand, people against the death penalty like Bedau think that the death penalty is just as much an effective deterrent as life in prison. The most famous retributivist Kant, states that the guilty ought to get punished because they chose to act wrongly, and by punishing them, we are respecting them as a moral agents. This occurs because humans are given the ability to reason and act morally and thus if we don’t punish them we are not treating them as moral agents.
Americans today tend to believe that the death penalty is inhumane and if the government kills someone they are decreasing the value of life. Though I concede that capital punishment is not a humane way to die, I also believe that being murdered is an inhumane way to die and the only way to value the life lost is by extracting the person who killed them. People who are murdered do not get to choose if they die or not. However, murderers do get to choose if they want to kill or not. Criminals decide whether they want to end someone’s life and face the consequences.
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.