"Maldistribution inheres no more in capital punishment than in any other punishment." (Haag 274) Fear of the death penalty can be a good deterrent. Many people also try to abolish the death penalty by talking about the suffering a convicted murderer has to go through, but what about what the victim had to go through. Further, if we get rid of the death penalty it will show that we are not willing to impose our punishments on people who brake our laws. Some maldistribution of the death penalty is unavoidable, but that does not mean we should throw out the death penalty.
It is morally wrong, individually or through government action, to seek revenge on a murderer by means of execution. The death penalty violates our right to life. Capital Punishment is Not an Effective Deterrent As justification for capital punishment, deterrence is used to suggest that executing murderers will decrease the homicide rate by causing other potential murderers not to commit murder from fear of being executed themselves and obviously the murderer who is executed will not kill again. This position may seem initially correct, and indeed, in a USA Today Poll, 68% of respondents agreed that the death penalty is an effective deterrence for crimes. However, some research suggests that rather than deterring homicide, state executions actually may cause an increase in the number of homicides (Stack, 1990).
There are several reasons it should be in effect including: proof that capital punishment does deter crime that would warrant this sentence, retribution for heinous crimes, and the morality of punishing someone who has committed a crime so horrendous. The use of capital punishment greatly deters citizens from committing nefarious crimes, such as murder (“Justice Is Served with the Death Penalty”). In general, one of the things people fear the most is death; therefore they are less likely to perform heinous actions if they know that death is a punishment for it. Ernest van den Haag, professor at Fordham University, stated, “ …capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most, death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts….Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred.
The principles of retributivism suggest that a convicted murderer should be executed because they “deserve” and “have earned” the death sentence. The right of retaliation can only be made equal by balancing of the crime with the punishment even if it is the death penalty. Those opposed to the death penalty argue that on moral grounds, all lives are sacred and killing is always wrong, a society, which kills, is no better than the murderer’s being punished. The Retributivist maintains that the death must be kept free from all maltreatment that would cause suffering to be loathsome or abominable. Punishment and more specifically “Capital Punishment” is a very controversial and sensitive subject.
In some respects, capital punishment is no better than the actions of a serial killer; it is killing for the sake of killing. I feel that if a person is deemed to be a threat to society then he should be removed from society and not... ... middle of paper ... ...east that way, if he is innocent, he would have the opportunity to prove his innocence. Upon researching this subject, I was extremely disturbed to find that the United States is one of the few countries that still has the death penalty. We really need to take another look at our justice system and try to bring about changes. The answer to society’s problems is not to just get rid of those people we believe are a threat to our security, but try to get to the root of the problem.
The consequentialist (usually utilitarian) arguments appeal to the good or bad consequences of capital punishment. The deontological arguments appeal to moral principles that hold independently of the consequences.” (350). Both of these views are extremely different but they both have a view on why capital punishment is moral and why capital punishment is immoral. Consequentialist argue for the death penalty by stating, “it either prevents criminals from harming others again or deters would-be offenders from capital crimes.” (350). Deontological people argue for the death penalty through retributivism which states that the punishment should resemble the crime, meaning that if you kill a person the only just punishment would be for the guilty person to be killed.
You will not kill. How does it say it? By killing!” Although the statement is memorable and appealing, it is also misleading and deceptive. Capital punishment does not demonstrate the wrongfulness of killing by killing; it demonstrates the wrongfulness of killing by executing convicted murderers after a fair trial. The death penalty is enforced to illustrate that murder is intolerable: if one takes the life of an innocent human, then one will suffer th... ... middle of paper ... ...dges then conclude if the suspect is guilty and decide whether the criminal will receive the death penalty; the family does not.
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.
. The death penalty is a punishment that can be used in cases of extreme offence such as: murder, terrorism, drug trafficking, and aggravated kidnapping. Reasons for the death penalty are simply to eliminate the offender so that he or she does not have the opportunity to offend the law again. By using the death penalty criminals don 't have the opportunity to go into a prison system where they can harm or injure other inmates or guards in that facility (Death Penalty). Statistics show that violent crime offenders are rarely capable of true change and therefore have a greater tendency to repeat and less tendency to reform.
Closing sentence: The US should have think in a better way if it really need to execute those criminals, or if it can use that money to improve its citizens’ lives and take care of them. Body paragraph 2nd reason (your stance) Topic Sentence: The Death Penalty does not guarantees the public safety. Introduce quote 1: When a state execute a criminal, the possibly of get murder in the streets do not dismiss, states are killing people for nothing. The death of a criminal do not guarantees that safety of the society, so what can the US do for their country? Quote: Cornell law professor Blume illustrates, “We spend a lot of money to execute a very small number of people.