Legal professor Ernest van den Haag believes that the death penalty is the good as in a punishment for terrible crimes that are committed. On the other hand professor of philosophy Hugo Adam Bedau thinks that the death penalty is not appropriate, do to it takes the lives of people that can not afford a good defense. I would have to agree with Ernest van den Haag. When a person commits a serious crime like murder, the only fitting penalty is death. "Maldistribution inheres no more in capital punishment than in any other punishment."
The punishment of a criminal should be fit to the crime. The counterexample of this is that the death penalty is unethical, and non-effective for many reasons. The biggest issue with the death penalty is the expenses that go along with it. The death penalty is also hypocritical, and un-reversible. If someone who was given the death penalty was later found guilty, there would be no way to bring them back, whereas if they were in jail they could be taken out.
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.
Killing is an evil act, but when it is committed, the only way to achieve justice is by dealing the killer the same hand they dealt an innocent. Human rights are violated by not eliminating the people who take someone else’s, because allowing someone who has murdered in cold blood to continue living is just as disrespectful to the person killed as the murderer taking their life in the first place. By eliminating these people, society is actually acknowledging the sanctity of human life. The death penalty is the moral solution because protecting a killer holds the same immorality as killing a person directly, and if we defend a killer, what makes us any better than them?
As a society we must grant our trust into the hands of authority. While there still can be wrong imprisonment of people for petty crimes such as robbery, these would not quality for the death row. On the other hand, those people who committed mass murder, and let me reiterate mass murderers are often not wrongfully accused. These people deserve no less for themselves than what they have done to others. Even though we are compelled to remember a famous saying “An Eye For An Eye Makes The World Go Blind” we should not forget that death penalty, as I believe, should be applied to murderers of multiple victims.
We do not live completely in the days of Hammurabi's "eye for an eye," but neither have we come close to a crime-free utopia which would allow the end of the death penalty. Instead, we compromise, reserving execution for the m... ... middle of paper ... ...ild, or a merciless killer? Speaking relatively, of which the secular left is so fond, those right-wing zealots do seem to have reason and logic on their side. The fetal child we know is innocent; conversely, we can be certain that death row convicts have done something to get themselves into their current situation. Therefore, if someone has to die, it would seem that we would choose the guiltiest person.
There are chances that the system might convict an innocent citizen. There is no way to mend the mistakes we make. “‘We’re only humans, we all make mistakes,”’ (“Capital Punishment”) is a frequently used expression, but is it as true as anything can be. Therefore, the fact that there is a chance of an innocent life to be condemned to death should be enough to abolish the death penalty, but it is not enough for our government. Additionally, according to Amnesty International “‘the death penalty legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims.”’(“Capital Punishment”).
The death penalty provides nothing but pain for the victims family, the economy and the society. There are multiple reasons why one should be against the death penalty. For a society that wants to be civilized, putting people to death does not solve that problem. Thinking that its helping, the death penalty actually creates a whole new set of victims. Mistakes are made because cases always turns out to be innocent.
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.
How is that any different from simply murdering someone? There is no reason for the death penalty to be an option, even in particularly heinous crimes, when the alternative of life in prison without parole is on the table. Capital punishment is seen by many of its defenders as necessary due to the fact that it is the ultimate warning for criminals. People fear nothing more then death. Our own mortality drives humans to do crazy things through out our lives.