This scenario also results in complications outside of the victim and their family. If a person is executed for a crime they did not commit, not only was another life ended for no justifiable reason, but in addition, valuable time and resources were wasted on the wrong person, and the real culprit is still out in the world, continuing to threaten society. Opponents of such punishment may also advocate that the met... ... middle of paper ... ...ason other than their own lust for human blood and suffering, their life should be ended in return. Humans have a moral obligation to rid the world of people who kill or commit other heinous crimes. 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.
The freedom to live Up to today, 36 countries apply the death penalty, also called the capital punishment. It is the irredeemable approval of the government to take the lives of people who have done irreparable crimes. In other words, it means that people are taking away the lives of other people in order to punish them for having done extreme actions. But the death penalty does not castigate a convicted person who has done something extremely bad for example like murdering someone; rather it frees the person from his/her misery and does not allow him/her to live with a guilt he/she is going to carry with him/her during his/her entire lifetime. We were all born by the will of God, and considered as a gift to the universe.
The supporters claim that the death penalty will eliminate criminals and that these offenders will not be around to repeat any future crimes. Legally, criminals should be "innocent until proven guilty;” but in reality, they are often accused to be "guilty until proven innocent.” However, the abolitionists argue that innocent people have been mistakenly placed on death row and executed because of the flaws in the current criminal justice system. Amnesty International discovered that “innocent people may be sentenced to death through judicial error” ("Evidence Against Death Penalty”). As a result, tragedies are irreversible. An innocent victim by the name of “Steven Truscott was wrongly convicted of murder… It was horrible for Truscott and the victim 's family because the real culprit got away with murder” (Wheeler).
This argument by Kant shows that offenders will get what they deserve when they commit a wrongful act, but some criminals or murderers don’t really know what is going on, thus they are not deserving of punishment. Kant believes in universalizing the maxims which you act on, hence a murderer has willed that the same thing be done to him which makes the death penalty morally required according to Kant(Kant, pg 240). This shows that Kant is a strong supporter of the death penalty because without it how would we be able to rightfully punish murderers. Therefore all murderers ought to be sentenced to death row and if they are not proven inno... ... middle of paper ... ...idivist murders, in which murderers are given the opportunity to kill innocent people while they are sentenced. Therefore, no matter how you look at it the retributivists have two risks while Bedau only has one.
The death penalty is improper due to the price and time of executing someone, that it isn’t a deterrent against violent crime, and how immoral and contradicting it is. There are popular arguments in today’s public to support the death penalty. Some say that if we kill a man sentenced to the death penalty, it costs less than to keep that inmate locked up for the rest of his life. Also, the public feels that if we show violent offenders that they will be killed if they kill another, it will make them think twice about killing. Finally, people feel if someone is convicted of murder, they should be sentenced to the death penalty.
Capital punishment has been the “ultimate” price to pay for criminals over hundred of years. This form of punishment was designed to keep criminals off our streets and to scare people from committing heinous crimes, like murder. Without capital punishment, our society would seem as if it supported the act of murder. Showing that you will lose your life, if you choose to take the life of another, proves how seriously these crimes are taken by society. There are arguments for capital punishment, and there are arguments against it, but what is the best argument for/against having capital punishment?
The whole system of capital punishment is visibly flawed as its ability to execute the real criminals based upon DNA evidence continues to fail. Also, by killing criminals instead of using life imprisonment, the government continues to waste life and morally corrupt the public by settling random violent acts with systematic violent acts. Although some believe that murderers and cold-blooded killers should be immediately assigned the death penalty, death row should not be used as its process contains several flaws and it degrades the value of human life when alternative actions can be taken. From a historical standpoint, the use of capital punishment has survived through the ages, starting during the rule of Hammurabi in the Babylonian area. His Code dictated the earliest forms of the death penalty, which applied to a broad scope of punishments all under a single law, like, “an eye for an eye”.
Danforth says, “12 others have already been hanged for the same charge; pardons for the remaining convicts would be unjust and crack the voice of God's law with "whimpering." Hale says a week's postponement would seem like mercy to the public, not weakness. Danforth doesn't listen.” This proves how Danforth won’t postpone the hangings because he won’t allow himself, his government, or his God, to look weak. He thinks reputation is more important to him than standing up to save innocent lives. Next, when pride and arrogance comes in between ... ... middle of paper ... ...tain character and ignorance.
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.
Murdering the convicted murder would only cause more grief for his family, therefore, over time, grieving would become commonplace. Resurrection has never been the purpose of the death penalty. It is understood that the death penalty will not totally take away the emotions and feelings of the relatives, however the death penalty will ease those pains. The grief and despair would be considerably heavier to carry if the relatives knew that the perpetrator was only sentenced to prison and would be released after a period of time. Therefore, I feel that the death penalty will never become unnecessary.