There is no justification whatsoever as to why a criminal activity should be paid with another crime, because that is exactly what capital punishment does. In addition, executing a criminal because he/she killed another person is like an act of revenge, yet vengeance has no place in our justice system and a wrong cannot be paid with a wrong. Therefore, let us note that, killing a criminal does not bring back the life of the victims, and it is just losing another life (Hanks 120). Therefore, pain cannot be healed through vengeance by capital punishment and so let us apply other punishment other than capital punishment because it brings no difference after the criminal has been put to death (Carpenter 60). Consequently, killing criminals cannot prevail over a crime nor bring back the life of the person who was killed by the person convicted of
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.
It is wrong for everyone involved: the prosecuted innocent, criminals, victims’ families, and our nation. We need to replace the death penalty and capital punishment with life without parole, a safer and more inexpensive option. The death penalty does not guarantee safety for innocent victims, it does not follow the goals and promises of our nation, it does not effectively deter crime, and it does not give closure to victims’ families. Nothing good comes of hate, and nothing good can ever come from capital punishment. It cannot continue to be accepted by a nation that claims to have liberty and justice for all.
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.
Just because someone has killed does not mean it is okay to take their life; that just means more murder and more murderers. We might as well call ourselves the murderers. No matter the reason or how bad the crime, taking a life should never be the conclusion, nor a decision even worth considering. Capital Punishment is a cruel and unnecessary punishment; it should be illegal in the United States for multiple reasons. Capital Punishment is awful and inhumane.
The death penalty also serves as retribution because in a just society, if someone takes a life, then they should give up their life. Abolitionist against the death penalty feel it is immoral, applied unfairly, and serves to sanction revenge instead of retribution. Many people believe that the death penalty is immoral because it is not right to kill someone. According to Thurgood Marshall, capital punishment violates the Eight Amendment because it is morally unacceptable to people of the United States. In judging whether or not a given penalty is morally acceptable, most courts have said that the punishment is valid unless it shocks the conscience and sense of justice of the people.
In addition, it disrespects and lowers the value of human life. Death penalty is a cruel punishment and people suffer both physically and emotionally before their execution (Shah 3). Opponents argue that, anyone who kills deserves to die too so as to have a test of their own cruelty. According to them, "an eye for an eye" honors the victims, and makes sure that the perpetrators will never commit the same crime again (Garland 102). There is no justification whatsoever as to why a crime should be paid with another crime.
Obviously that cannot be rationalized in any manner. No matter from what perspective it is viewed, capital punishment is murdering another human being. Even if a law is broken and the person has made the world a worse place to live, killing someone else can never be justified, especially by measuring its social utility. The world would be a better place if many people did not exist, but it would not be legitimate to exterminate everyone who does not increase the happiness in the world. Social utility cannot justify the existence of capital punishment, nor can it be used as rationale to reject it.
It is immoral on so many levels. Also it has never been proven to deter crime. Therefore capital punishment, the death penalty, should be abolished in all states. Innocent or wrongfully convicted people will be able to benefit from this, and stand another chance without the death penalty. Also there is a great chance there will be a decrease in murder rates.
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.