The Pros And Cons Of John Locke's Social Contract

1054 Words3 Pages

For those who are familiar with John Locke’s social contract should remember that as an individual we give up certain freedoms that we see fit in order to protect our basic rights to life, liberty, and property. If an individual breaks this “contract” then why should they reape its protection. If someone violates the terms of a contract then they lose all that it entails. Why should it be any different in this situation. The individual has willing broken the contract and should suffer as anyone else would in this certain situation. By taking away the rights to life of someone else that person has forfeit their own. This means that they officially become the state 's property does it not? This is something to think of as it would completely change the system by which our criminals of a caliber as high as this would be tried. People that argue against this ask for a sympathetic role to which leads the question to,”To what are you appealing?” At this point they are already unable to contribute back to society. They are in a word a parasite leeching away at the life of those that follow the rules that they as a part of society have created and contribute to. …show more content…

Costs vary ranging from an additional twenty-five thousand dollars to as high as One million dollars. This is astronomical coming from a nation in debt. We either need to figure out a way that allows the people save money on putting people to death who break society 's rules then leech money away or we need to stop it all together. This would be the only logical reason to prevent the death penalty from being implemented, but as shown above there are lackluster aspects to the system. Even when a decision is made our government doesn’t take the best coarse of action when trying to follow through on the

Open Document