preview

Death Penalty

Better Essays
Thesis

It is more reasonable to utilize the death penalty than to abolish it. The death penalty should not be abolished because (1) it deters people from committing murder and (2) because the death penalty gives peace of mind to the victims and their families and puts an end to the crime.

Arguments for the thesis

(1) The death penalty should not be abolished because the fear of the highest form of punishment will keep potential victims alive.

(2) The death penalty should not be abolished because the families of the victims can only begin the healing process once the murderer is put to death.

Response to objections to the thesis

(1) Objection: The death penalty should be abolished because even the highest form of punishment will not remove the evil from society.

Response: If the death penalty was abolished, the convicted murderer has the potential to escape and kill again. This will spread more evil and give the option to kill again to the murderer.

(2) Objection: The execution of a convicted murderer will never bring the victims back to life. Therefore it serves no purpose other than to kill.

Response: Resurrection has never been the purpose of the death penalty. The family members just want to start healing and they can’t while the perpetrator is still alive.

Bibliography
Van der Haag, Ernest and John P. Conrad, The Death Penalty: A Debate (New York: Plenum Press, 1983).

Arlen Specter, “Congress must make Death Sentences Meaningful Again” (Human Events, July 1994).

Hugo, Adam Bedau, Ed., The Death penalty in America: Current Controversies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)

Blumstein, Cohen, Nagin, Deterrence and Incapacitation (National Academy Press January 1978)

It is more reasonable to utilize the death penalty than to abolish it. The death penalty should not be abolished because (1) it deters people from committing murder and (2) because the death penalty gives peace of mind to the victims and their families and puts an end to the crime.
The death penalty deters some people from committing heinous crimes and thereby also saves human lives. 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. Just because someone has taken a life, it doesn’t mean that the convict’s life should also be taken. Is it fair to take a bad situation and make it worse?
The death penalty will never sweep away the emotions and feelings of grief that the relatives and friends feel. Murdering the convicted murder would only cause more grief for his family, therefore, over time, grieving would become commonplace.
Resurrection has never been the purpose of the death penalty. It is understood that the death penalty will not totally take away the emotions and feelings of the relatives, however the death penalty will ease those pains. The grief and despair would be considerably heavier to carry if the relatives knew that the perpetrator was only sentenced to prison and would be released after a period of time. Therefore, I feel that the death penalty will never become unnecessary.
Get Access