In 1977, Clarence Ray Allen was convicted for murder after arranging the death of a witness against him in a burglary case and was subsequently sentenced to life in prison without parole. In 1980, Allen organized the killings of the witnesses who had worked against him in his previous conviction. Finally, Allen was sentenced to death, but it wasn’t until 2006 that he was executed (Ardaiz). During those twenty-six painful years, the families and loved ones of the victims had to spend their days knowing that the one who had torn apart their family was still alive. As James A. Ardaiz, a former judge, and the prosecutor on the case of Allen, so succinctly put it, “Retribution is not only a need of society; it is a right of those victimized.” One person who the death penalty brought peace to was John Rizzotti.
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.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT Crime is a part of our lives, it is everywhere! Controlling or eliminating crime and criminals is no easy task but it can not be ignored. Making sure those that are rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. There are many reasons why people commit crimes; some do it for the shear of enjoyment others do it to be able to survive. The death penalty should not be used for every crime, although I strongly believe it should be used for those who commit very violent crimes, such as murder.
Not everyone will be deterred from committing heinous crimes because of the death penalty. However, since the death penalty is the highest penalty for crimes it will obviously evoke the most fear in a human being. This fear will save... ... middle of paper ... ...rt the healing process. If a state governed by law is to be able to show warmth, compassion and peace of mind to victims and their families, then the death penalty is the most effective way to bring this about. The argument to the above is that the death penalty does not bring back any victim to life, therefore, unnecessary.
Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is a realistic alternative for the small number of offenders who are likely to be executed in any given year. Justice does not demand death but justice does demand that murderers be punished. If punishment is justifiable as for restoring justice and the moral order, it does not necessarily follow that capitol punishment is moral. " The death penalty only allows us to extend the pain. It allows us to continue to blame one another, to turn against one another, to learn to hate better" .
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 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.
The controversy between whether criminals who have committed heinous crimes should be charged with the death penalty has been debated worldwide. Putting people to death, judged to have committed certain extremely abhorrent crimes, is a practice that has been around for a long time. However, in the later half of the twentieth century, it has become a controversial issue. As a supporter of the death penalty, I believe that it is essential part of the criminal justice system to deter crime. There are several reasons it should be in effect including: proof that capital punishment does deter crime that would warrant this sentence, retribution for heinous crimes, and the morality of punishing someone who has committed a crime so horrendous.
The death penalty is violating our 8th amendment, and it is technically violating our rights as Americans. We have the right to remain innocent until proven guilty, but in some cases the death penalty can automatically accuse someone of being guilty, and just like that, someone could lose their life due to injustices. By still having the death penalty the U.S is still looked down upon since we are abusing human rights with the death penalty. Many other countries in Western Europe, North America and South America have abandoned the death penalty in their criminal justice system.
Supporters of this form of this sanction believe that capital punishment does more to protect and benefit society than to harm it, in that it could provide closure to a community or deter that community from future crimes (Kay). Some people would associate the death penalty with the saying “an eye for and eye” in that it provides closure to the affected families (Dobbs). Late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, Ernest Van Den Haag claims, “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” (ProCon.org). Naturally, people fear death, therefore people use this logic to claim that the threat of the death penalty daunts criminals who otherwise might not have been.