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.
If capital punishment were carried out more it would prove to be the crime preventative it was partly intended to be. Most criminals would think twice before committing murder if they knew their own lives were at stake. Use of the death penalty as intended by law could actually reduce the number of violent murders by eliminating some of the repeat offenders. The death penalty has always been and continues to be a very controversial issue. In the future, many problems could be resolved keeping the death penalty and not getting rid of it.
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 would not only bring closure to the family, but deter crime by knowing that they could not commit murder or harm to anyone else’s family or loved ones. By using capital punishment, criminals will think twice about crimes they are going to commit. The death penalty re-assures the communities that heinous crimes deserving of capital punishment will ensure that these crimes will not be committed any more.
Is it better to execute them or incarcerate them? This paper will discuss the pros and cons of the death penalty and my personal view regarding this matter. On one hand, proponents of the death penalty believe that it will deter crime. One of the authors in the book that we have been using in class, Louis Pojman, argues that the fear of the death penalty can cause criminals and soon-to-be criminals from committing any sort of heinous crime. Today, the legal teams representing criminals on death row usually try to stall the execution as long as they can.
• The death penalty is the best answer for murder.  Our justice system attempts to have the punishments fit the crime. In the instance of homicide, why should the perpetrator be given the same punishment as the offender in a serious non-violent offence? Each of these arguments are great reasons for continuing with the death penalty as a punishment. However for every argument supporting the death penalty there is an equally strong argument for reasons to abolish this punishment and they include: • The death penalty teaches the criminals nothing.
* Cruel and unusual? : Legal challenges depict the practice as inhumane. Deterrence For Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.
It guarantees that a psychotic murderer is not going to kill or harm anyone ever again. It could also help deter possible criminals from doing a crime if they know they will be killed for doing that crime. There is no greater penalty in life than death. Currently there are thirty two states where the death penalty is a legal sentence. If one is on the fence about murder in one of these states they might think twice about it.
According Van den Haag (1983) death penalty is the best way to deter murder for the reason that death is what mostly horrifies people. He believes that there is no other way, even life imprisonment can not deter murder to the extent of death penalty, and moreover he argues that in order to prevent future homicides it is better to sentence killers to death. However, those who oppose death penalty strictly believe that death penalty is not efficient way to decrease rate of crimes. American Civil Liberties Union (2007) argues that long term imprisonment is not inferior to death penal... ... middle of paper ... ...h and guilty than if you are poorer and innocent” (as cited in Bedau and Cassell, 2004). So, poor people are more likely to be sentenced to death and some of them may be innocent, and terrifying consequence is that once death penalty is imposed it can never be taken back again.
Supporters of this form of this sanction believe that capital punishment does more to protect and benefit society than to harm it, in that it could provide closure to a community or deter that community from future crimes (Kay). Some people would associate the death penalty with the saying “an eye for and eye” in that it provides closure to the affected families (Dobbs). Late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, Ernest Van Den Haag claims, “Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder... People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death” (ProCon.org). Naturally, people fear death, therefore people use this logic to claim that the threat of the death penalty daunts criminals who otherwise might not have been.