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.
Capital punishment remains a cause for debate with people continuing to disagree on what cruel and unusual punishment consists of. Cruel and unusual punishment being defined as torture or a deliberately degrading punishment, in no way does the death penalty fall into this category. Having the death penalty in our society deters potential violent offenders from committing crimes, saves the government money, and guarantees that offenders will not commit these crimes again. The United States should use the death penalty because it is economical and continues to be a deterrent for potential offenders. Take into consideration that the Constitution states that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can not be taken away without due process.
According Van den Haag (1983) death penalty is the best way to deter murder for the reason that death is what mostly horrifies people. He believes that there is no other way, even life imprisonment can not deter murder to the extent of death penalty, and moreover he argues that in order to prevent future homicides it is better to sentence killers to death. However, those who oppose death penalty strictly believe that death penalty is not efficient way to decrease rate of crimes. American Civil Liberties Union (2007) argues that long term imprisonment is not inferior to death penal... ... middle of paper ... ...h and guilty than if you are poorer and innocent” (as cited in Bedau and Cassell, 2004). So, poor people are more likely to be sentenced to death and some of them may be innocent, and terrifying consequence is that once death penalty is imposed it can never be taken back again.
Having the death penalty in our society is humane; it helps the overcrowding problem and gives relief to the families of the victims, who had to go through an event such as murder. Without the death penalty, criminals would be more inclined to commit additional violent crimes. Fear of death discourages people from committing crimes. If capital punishment were carried out more it would prove to be the crime preventative it was partly intended to be. Most criminals would think twice before committing murder if they knew their own lives were at stake.
This is because death is so much more feared than the mere restrictions on one's... ... middle of paper ... ...s and criminals are not dealt with fairly? Capital punishment is justified because there won’t be worries about the state paying for criminals’ lifetime in jail, it will provide retribution and condemnation, and crime and murder rates will decrease. Using capital punishment prevents many unnecessary deaths and crimes. If we no longer use it deaths and crimes will increase, due to the fact that the consequences are not severe enough to make the criminal think before they act. Capital punishment is justified!
Although the death penalty is a reasonable punishment, I am against it because it is another form of murder, which is a cruel act. Death penalty is also known as capital punishment, where a criminal proven guilty of a major crime is sentenced to death by the government. I am against the death penalty and can prove it. Death penalty decreases crime for the reason that people fear nothing more than death (Van Den Haag, 1983). By putting the criminals to death, the people all around us are protected from future crimes.
According to Justice Department figures, nearly 80 percent of inmates on death row are Black, Hispanic or from another minority group (Eddlem, 2002). Yet another reason for abolishing capital punishment is that the death penalty is often applied at random. “Politics, quality of legal counsel and the jurisdiction where a crime is committed are more... ... middle of paper ... ... it achieves justice. In my opinion, people who commit heinous crimes against humanity should be executed. Regardless of cost or how long it takes I believe that putting these people to death is the correct sentence, not only because I feel that they deserve to die but because the death penalty is a deterrent and society is better off without these criminals.
Proponents believe that killing these criminals will reduce crime and make sure that the criminals will never commit a monstrous crime again. Many prisoners who are out on parole can take advantage of their release and actually cause more crimes and danger. But if the criminals are put on death row, it also sets an example for others and may prevent petty criminals from moving on to more serious crimes. The death pen... ... middle of paper ... ...ices, instead of being used for the death penalty. The better alternative is life without parole, not the death penalty.
By placing convicts on death row, America has found a just way of preventing repeat offenders while decreasing the rate of homicide as justice deteriorates crime rates. For instance, “There is overwhelming proof that living murderers harm and murder again, in prison and after improper release. No one disputed that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder again than are those that are executed murderers” (Williams). Accordingly, with the chance of facing the death penalty and going on death row, criminals are discouraged from committing the crime they are proceeding in, apprehensive of being placed on death row. Revealing likewise, this also shows that punishing criminals by benefiting them with shelter, food, and basic accommodations does not discourage them from committing more crimes after an improper release occurs.
Retribution would be gained to the family of the one murdered but this would not stop any other murders. Morris would have to say that the accused has lost moral standing. It is possible that these murderers never had moral standing and so executing them as retribution is fitting because those they hurt have more moral standing than they ever had. Reiman would say we may have a right to execute the criminal for such crimes but do not have a duty.