The death penalty is not the most effective form of punishment for criminals. The death penalty is hypocritical; it condemns killing by killing people. Many supporters of capital punishment cite retribution as being a justification for the death penalty; however, no matter what the circumstance, murder is never justified. Ghandi once said “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Two wrongs can never make a right. Capital punishment should be abolished because while even though many supporters of the death penalty claim that it prevents crime, there is no evidence that it has been proven to do so.
In an article about advantages of the death penalty, Luther Avery states, “The punishment should always fit the crime” (Avery 1). This means that the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment. The death penalty is the best option of punishment because it serves justice. Cruel murders deserve the death penalty. If a murderer was given a different punishment other than the death penalty, the human live(s) that perished would become less and less important.
Recently in the United States, there has been 875 prisoners executed, but not one has been proven innocent. The death penalty provides justice to the families involved in the worst crimes (Jacoby). “The execution of a murderer sends a powerful moral message: that the innocent life he t... ... middle of paper ... ...es, but we do not tear the lighthouse down’” (qtd. by Sharp “Death Penalty Paper”). We believe that the death penalty should be enforced because it can be used as a way to put fear into criminals and decrease the murder rate throughout the world.
Thesis It is more reasonable to utilize the death penalty than to abolish it. The death penalty should not be abolished because (1) it deters people from committing murder and (2) because the death penalty gives peace of mind to the victims and their families and puts an end to the crime. Arguments for the thesis (1) The death penalty should not be abolished because the fear of the highest form of punishment will keep potential victims alive. (2) The death penalty should not be abolished because the families of the victims can only begin the healing process once the murderer is put to death. 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.
The main dispute for those who favor capital punishment is due to the fact that death is the “ultimate incapacitation” (Siegel, 411). I think that this is the quintessential reason why the United States should continue to allow the death penalty. Without it there are ways of mitigating ones sentence, making it unfair to the victims. Sternberg states that taxpayers “should not bear the costs of keeping [those on death row] alive in prison” (Sternberg, 5). I agree with this statement because once a person is convicted of a harsh enough crime to be condemned to life in prison they should not be dependent on society’s hard earned cash.
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."
Ernest van den Hagg, in his article “On Deterrence and the Death Penalty” mentions, “One abstains from dangerous acts because of vague, inchoate, habitual and, above all preconscious fears” (193). Without this type of deterrence what would stop criminals that already in prisons for life keep from killing another inmate or a staff that works there? There are those that are against the death penalty called anti-death penalty advocates, they say that imprisonment by it self is enough to deter criminals, killing criminals is not needed! Hugo Bedau argues in his article, “Capital Punishment and Social defense” says, “Crimes can be deterred only by making would-be criminals frightened of being arrested, convicted, and punished for crimes” (301). According to Richard Seiter in his book “An Introduction Corrections” states that “From 1986 to 1997 the number of males that went to prison increased 70% while the number of females increased 118%” (210).
However, many criminologists support that the death penalty is not a deterrent to capital crimes. As a result we can say that if it does not fulfill its basic functions how it could be effective. People believe that death penalty decrease crimes because people fear nothing more than death. They think by giving criminals death penalty we can save many lives and can make other criminals feel fear to prevent future crimes. Whil... ... middle of paper ... ...th penalty, society is also guilty of committing murder.
For example, In February 1997,the American Bar Association called fora suspension on executions, until policies could be instituted which insured that death penalty cases are fairly administered according to due processes . What the death penalty serves to do is provide the ultimate form of protection of human life, by deterring potential criminals in taking a life. Ernest Van Den Haag simply argues, “ Miscarriage of justice does not warrant the abolition of the death penalty”. He further argues that in daily human activities, such as driving a car, air travel and war, there are deaths of innocent people. However those activities are not considered morally unjust, because their benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.
There are many reasons as to why I believe the death penalty should be legalized in all states, including deterrence and retribution. In contrast, critics view the death penalty as unconstitutional and irrevocable. The use of capital punishment greatly discourages any wrongdoers from committing any crime such as murder. Many people’s greatest fear is death; therefore if they know that death is a possible consequence for their actions, they are less likely to perform such actions. Ernest van den Haag, a professor and author of “Punishing Criminals:Concerning a Very Old and Painful Question” wrote about the issue of deterrence: “…capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else.