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.
Capital Punishment In my opinion capital punishment is wrong. The death penalty is the center of much debate in society. This is due, in part, to the fact that people see only the act of killing a criminal, and not the social effects the death penalty has on society as a whole. Upon reading about the death penalty, it was found to be an unethical practice. It promotes a violent and inhumane society in which killing is considered okay.
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?
On the other hand, such as with a voluntary murder, the ideas are somewhat similar. They believe the murderer doesn’t deserve the death penalty. Chances are if a person is insane enough to kill another human being in the first place, they aren’t going to care what happens to them. They 2 realize that their execution, in most cases, is going to be short and painless. This isn’t a just punishment for someone who has inflicted severe pain upon another life.
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.
So the argument that the criminal could be innocent is becoming invalid but there still is a small chance. Some people may not want to take the chance, however, the majority still votes for it. I believe that the death penalty is a humane form of punishment, reason being is that the people who commit unthinkable crimes are not the people we need to make this world. I believe people that commit murder and people who sexually assault children should definitely be executed. The reason why is because they assault people who are defenseless and abuse people just for the thrill of it.
If a person is so uncompassionate for human life and not care what happens; are sick enough to harm someone else, they should also pay the price with their lives. Violent criminals will always exist in society and the death penalty will only decrease these numbers gradually, however every violent criminal that does not exists in society makes society a safer place. Placing these criminals in prison with a life sentence does not deter them from committing another crime. This just enables them to plan, plot and proceed with the next murder, escape or worse. The majority of people that commit heinous crimes that call for the death pe... ... middle of paper ... ...shment: A Defense,” an article in The Death Penalty: Pro and Con written by Ernest Van Den Haag , shares this “Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers”(3) Having the death penalty in our society is not cruel or unusual punishment as it is not torture nor degrading punishment to those whom have committed the said crimes.
Capital Punishment Capital Punishment is regarded by most as a successful deterrent to murder, but that is because these people don’t look at it as it is applied. According to retributivists such as Kant and Van Den Haag the guilty deserves to be punished. On the other hand, people against the death penalty like Bedau think that the death penalty is just as much an effective deterrent as life in prison. The most famous retributivist Kant, states that the guilty ought to get punished because they chose to act wrongly, and by punishing them, we are respecting them as a moral agents. This occurs because humans are given the ability to reason and act morally and thus if we don’t punish them we are not treating them as moral agents.
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.
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.