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.
An easy way to answer these questions is to totally nullify capital punishment completely. One reason why the death penalty is so controversial is because many feel its cruel ways of punishment are unnecessary, even if the crime is murder, whether it be premeditated or unintentional. They believe there are other ways of condemnation besides execution. In the case of an unintentional death feelings are that the perpetrators should have the right to live, but have to face each day with the fact that they killed someone weighing on their conscience. On the other hand, such as with a voluntary murder, the ideas are somewhat similar.
He is for the death penalty, but he doesn’t want to “push the button” because there’s always that one small possibility the victim is not guilty. "I would never take that chance with my life,” he said. Call it what you want, execution or death penalty, but this is still the act of murdering a human being. Really, do the criminals even care about death? You sentence one criminal to death, and expect the rest to become terrified and stop their crimes in order not to die, but guess what?
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.
One argument from death penalty supporters is that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to prevent other people from committing murders. It is the belief that people will think out the consequences of their actions before murdering, and consider the death penalty not a reasonable consequence and thus not commit the crime. This, however, is intrinsically flawed. Most murderers or potential murderers do not usually take into account life in prison or the death penalty. There are many reasons for people to not consider the death penalty before committing the crime.
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. No one can guaranty that there is no possibility of discovering evidences which may exonerate an innocent person but since death penalty is irreversible process, an executed person will no longer be benefited by any new evidences. Thus, death penalty should be abolished and life which is most precious thing that a person can have should not be endangered by such punishment and one innocent life must not suffer in the place of true criminal. The death penalty should be abolished and should never be an option of punishment. Executing murders is not getting justice, it is getting revenge.
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).
The Death Penalty, Right or Wrong? Fear of death discourages people from committing crimes. 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. As it turns out though very few people are executed and so the death penalty is not a satisfactory deterrent.
(“Capital Punishment”) Most of the time, we never hear about the criminals who were confirmed guilty through trials, DNA testing, and more. Opponents of the capital punishment are selective about the certain cases they argue against, they aren’t as eager as the supporter’s debate over cases because they only want to degrade the system. Since opponents think that not one person deserves the death penalty the death penalty they only spend their time arguing with the legal system and talking about uncertainty. They will never win the argument of why a killer deserves to
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.