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.
"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.
The death penalty should not be used for every crime, although I strongly believe it should be used for those who commit very violent crimes, such as murder. Deterrence is the means to punish those who commit crimes as an example and to create fear in others who might want to commit a crime. The death penalty is one way we use to create fear! Most people fear death one way or another. 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).
Although the death penalty is a reasonable punishment, I am against it because it is another form of murder, which is a cruel act. Death penalty is also known as capital punishment, where a criminal proven guilty of a major crime is sentenced to death by the government. I am against the death penalty and can prove it. Death penalty decreases crime for the reason that people fear nothing more than death (Van Den Haag, 1983). By putting the criminals to death, the people all around us are protected from future crimes.
When given a choice, taxpayers will want to save money when it affects their bottom line. These numbers are only for one case, so readers will wonder what the death penalty is really costing their state. His next argument states innocent people are sitting on death row. Holloway appeals to the reader’s emotions when he states, “there have been 154 verified cases of death row exonerations since 1973” (4). Readers will be mad or sad that this many people are locked in jail for crimes they did not commit.
What does it mean for something to be wrong? It means that the majority of human beings can argue that those crimes hurt rather than benefit individuals or a society as a whole. The death penalty can be implemented for any of the crimes listed above when a judge believes that the crime is serious enough. However, the death penalty uses one of the crimes itself; murder. If the government uses the death penalty as a punishment in order to show that murder is wrong, how can they murder and assume it is right?
I think both the arguments are convincing, but Bedau’s argument has statistics to back up his logic. I believe the death penalty would be acceptable if there was no alternative, but since we can keep convicts in jail for life there is no need for the death penalty. Ernest Haag believes that criminal punishment is has a more deterrent effect on crime than life imprisonment can. He states that,” Science, logic or statistics have often been unable to prove what common sense ells us to be true”(355). I agree that you can’t directly measure deterrent, but you can measure plenty of other factors.
Is the death penalty really a rational and effective way to respond to the crimes of certain prisoners? Thirty one percent of society believes we should not keep the death penalty, while others believe that the death penalty doesn’t really keep crime from happening. Of the thirty one percent, many believe that executing offenders of the law only runs away from the issue at hand. Also, if society thinks about it, ending the penalty would cost less both physically and mentally. Lastly, abolishment of the penalty would help rid any of the negative and humane issues at hand: this involves the biblical verse; thou shalt not kill, and the national human rights law; article 3, and 5 of the Declaration of Independence.
Proponents believe that killing these criminals will reduce crime and make sure that the criminals will never commit a monstrous crime again. Many prisoners who are out on parole can take advantage of their release and actually cause more crimes and danger. But if the criminals are put on death row, it also sets an example for others and may prevent petty criminals from moving on to more serious crimes. The death pen... ... middle of paper ... ...ices, instead of being used for the death penalty. The better alternative is life without parole, not the death penalty.
The long term cost is almost the same as a life without parole sentence. Criminal who did serious crimes deserve the death penalty and do not deserve to live. The money spent on an inmate can be used to fix our roads, build schools, and enhance education programs for school. Some say that capital punishment is inhumane and barbaric, but these same morale feelings were not applied when the criminal murdered the victim. 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.