"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.
I agree, and do not think it is fair for someone who murdered and raped innocent people should be able to have these luxuries. The death penalty isn't necessarily the answer though. Inmates shouldn’t have the privileges of watching television, and should have more of a punishment. The opposing group presented their ideas and examples that supported why the death penalty is wrong, and non-effective. One thing they mentioned was that we do not have the resources, nor the money to make 100% sure that someone is guilty of the crime they are accused of.
So the argument that the criminal could be innocent is becoming invalid but there still is a small chance. Some people may not want to take the chance, however, the majority still votes for it. I believe that the death penalty is a humane form of punishment, reason being is that the people who commit unthinkable crimes are not the people we need to make this world. I believe people that commit murder and people who sexually assault children should definitely be executed. The reason why is because they assault people who are defenseless and abuse people just for the thrill of it.
Therefore, no matter how you look at it the retributivists have two risks while Bedau only has one. It is true that murderers deserve to die, but how do you make sure it’s those people who die and not innocent people like Roy Roberts. Its always arbitrary and discriminatory as it is applied, while it is not even being an effective deterrent to other criminals, and its costs are twice as a life sentence in prison. Thus, if you are a supporter and you can’t come up with an answer to any of these arguments, then you are a false supporter and should re-think your views. The only argument for the death penalty is that in theory it could be agreeable because it seems as though it would deter criminals but in practice there are too many arguments against it.
Finally, the death penalty also denies the sanctity of life; by executing people, the action does not protect their life and, therefore, denies the sanctity of a human being’s right to be alive in the world. There is a lot of tension between whether or not capital punishment is a moral thing. Capital punishment is only a good punishment to a certain extent because it takes away a criminal capable of more awful things. Many people think that capital punishment should continue to be a form of punishment and should be used throughout the country and world. If people on death row could be charged without a doubt and be executed at the time they are proven guilty, many problems could be resolved such as exoneration.
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.
One argument from death penalty supporters is that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to prevent other people from committing murders. It is the belief that people will think out the consequences of their actions before murdering, and consider the death penalty not a reasonable consequence and thus not commit the crime. This, however, is intrinsically flawed. Most murderers or potential murderers do not usually take into account life in prison or the death penalty. There are many reasons for people to not consider the death penalty before committing the crime.
Rationalization of the death penalty only equates to judicial murder. The same judges inflict unnecessary pain on the loved ones of the executed. If what we are all striving for is less pain, than we should not be advocating more. There are no easy answers, nor is there a clear line of right and wrong. Individual free will leads to differences within us all.
The fact is that the criminal had the choice between right and wrong, and by choosing to do the wrong thing, he or she gave up the right to dictate his or her future. Death penalty cases do cost extra than a life without parole sentence; however, because there are a greater number of life without parole sentences, the costs even out. The deterrence of crime that the death penalty creates is not seen very well in statistics because of some flaws in the research. Although the statistics are not in favor nor against capital punishment, common sense is in favor of the death penalty. Ernest Van Den Haag, a supporter of the death penalty once said, “People fear nothing more than death.” This fear of death has the ability to dissuade criminals.
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.