The Death Penalty Violates the Right to Life
The moral problem surrounding the death penalty is that capital punishment violates the right to life. In the Roman Catholic Church we are supposed to love our neighbors as we love our selves. If we support the death penalty then we are not supporting every individual right to life. Which is fundamental and absolute sacred right that belongs to each and every person.
The arguments for capital punishment include the following: 1) the death penalty can be
Used as a deterrent to crime. 2) If the death penalty was abolished that may increase the
Rate of murders. 3) The punishment should fit the crime. 4) The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man and channeling that instinct
…show more content…
Of the four hundred and forty five executed, twenty three were wrongfully convicted” There is no credible study has yet been produced any solid scientific evidence that the death penalty deters violent crime. The penalty of death is final what if we were wrong. Imprisonment would rehabilitate the criminal.
My position is that the punishment should fit the crime. If someone commits murder they
Should be put to death. Society has become desensitized to violence with all the movies
Glamorizing violence. Also the media coverage of crimes while they are occurring,
Like the Columbine tragedy and following O.J. Simpson alluding police with his attempted escape. Society does not even seem to be bothered with all the violence
Shown on television and in the newspaper. I don’t now when this country became so
Indifferent to the increase in violence. The age of violent offenders is getting younger and younger. The government needs to start holding people accountable for their
…show more content…
This should not be acceptable. If you commit murder then be executed.
Opponents to the death penalty will disagree with my views on the death penalty. The Thorsten Sellin studies conducted in the United States during 1962, 1967, and 1980 concluded that the death penalty had no deterrent effect. The British Royal Commission
On Capital punishment analyzed statistics from seven European and non-European countries reporting that no evidence linked abolition of the death penalty to increased homicide rates. Some researchers have found that the death penalty not only fails to reduce murder rates, but may also increase the number of homicides. (www.amnesty-usa.org).
The United States Bowers-Pierce study, analyzing executions between 1907 and 1963 concluded that an average of two additional murders were committed in the month after an execution. Also society noted that as of July 1997, approximately 3,269 men and women were imprisoned on death rows in the United States. An average of eighty percent of these inmates were black, and since murder in the United States is committed at an equal percentage among whites and black, the application of the death penalty is obviously racially biased. (WWW. Amnesty-usa.org). The biggest argument against the death penalty what if we kill an innocent person, which has occurred in the
Final Exam Kristina McLaughlin Saint Joseph’s University CRJ 565 Question 1: Word Count The judicial system is based on the norms and values that individuals are held to within society. When a person is found guilty of committing a criminal act, there must be a model that serves as the basis of what appropriate punishment should be applied. These models of punishment are often based off of ethical theories and include retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. The retribution model of punishment views the offender as responsible for their actions and as such, the punishment should fit the crime (Mackie, 1982).
or hundreds of years people have considered capital punishment a deterrence of crime. Seven hundred and five individuals have died since 1976, by means of capital punishment; twenty-two of these executions have already occurred this year (Death Penalty Information Center). Many U.S. citizens who strongly support the death penalty believe that capital punishment remains the best way to protect society from convicted killers. I, however, disagree; I do not feel that execution best punishes criminals for their acts. Instead, in my opinion, the administration of the death penalty should end because it does not deter crime; it risks the death of an innocent person, it costs millions of dollars, it inflicts unreasonable pain; and most importantly it violates moral principles.
Audience relevance: The United States is one Nation and that we believe that if you commit any crime you must be punished. If you commit a crime than you should be punish not murder. The death penalty is not a punishment. Also the Death Penalty is costing many of us money without even knowing.
Opponents of this position argue that the death penalty is a necessary evil. One of the top arguments is that you must punish offenders to discourage others from committing similar offenses (Radelet 44). Many people also feel that the victim’s families deserve closure. The prisoners have to pay for their crime and deserve the punishment that they get. Using the death penalty helps deal with the overpopulation in prisons. There are not enough resources or space to house prisoners for life. This statement can be true to a certain point. However, when talking about sacrificing one person’s life for the greater good of society, no man should have the authority to end someone’s life. One of the biggest issues that opponents argue is how much the victims suffer if the killer is not put to death. A murderer not only affects the person they kill, but also the victim’s friends and family’s life. They have to live with the grief of losing a loved one. If the killer is not put to death they could get the feeling that someone is out to get them. They will not be able to rest until the killer is tried and executed. Although this side of the argumen...
The people in support of the death penalty say that if murderers are sentenced to death, future committers will think about the consequences before they actually proceed with the crime. However, most murderers don’t expect or plan to be caught and weigh their fate. Because, murders are committed when the murderer is angry or passionate, or by drug abusers and people under the influence of drugs or alcohol ("Deterrence (In Opposition to the Death Penalty)”). Therefore, it will not deter future crimes and will actually increase the amount of murders because of society. As previously stated, the death penalty isn’t proven to prevent future murders and/or crimes because it actually increases the likelihood of committing murder. It doesn’t prevent future murders because it would upset the family and friends of the person who was executed. For example, if someone was executed by the death penalty and it was someones family member, then the person who lost their loved one by the execution would most likely commit murder in anger. If that person was executed the next family member would get angry and so on. The cycle would never end and would have more murders. There is no final proof that the death penalty is a better deterrent than other options. Not having the death penalty would be better because it could save many lives. For example, United States a country that uses the death penalty has a higher murder rate than Europe or Canada which are countries that do not use the death penalty. To get a little specific, the states in the United States that do not use the death penalty have a lower murder rate than the states that do.
Retribution is the philosophy best explained by the famous saying, “an eye for an eye”. Those that believe in this form of justice hold a strict and harsh view on punishments for crime. The proponents of retribution believe that severe penalties act as deterrence to future crime, however, studies
punishment is an asset to society: it is the only punishment that fits the crime, it deters potential criminals
"Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? Essays and Articles at eNotes." ENotes - Literature Study Guides, Lesson Plans, and More. Web. 13 Jan. 2010. .
On the other side of the debate, there are those that believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. For most criminals, they are aware of the fact that if they get caught, they will be sent to prison. However, other than being sent to prison, there are not really any other repercussions for committing a crime. They argue that if a person were to be presented with the possibility of the death penalty, they would more than likely think twice about their actions and realize that there are more risks than just im...
When someone is legally convicted of a capital crime, it is possible for their punishment to be execution. The Death Penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. Some believe the act of punishing a criminal by execution is completely inhumane, while others believe it is a necessary practice needed to keep our society safe. In this annotated bibliography, there are six articles that each argue on whether or not the death penalty should be illegalized. Some authors argue that the death penalty should be illegal because it does not act as a deterrent, and it negatively effects the victim’s families. Other scholar’s state that the death penalty should stay legalized because there is an overcrowding in prisons and it saves innocent’s lives. Whether or not the death penalty should be
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
The death penalty deters murder. The death penalty is the best way to stop a killer from killing someone else. Some say that prison is enough, but it isn’t. Death is necessary because if they are only sent to prison there is always the risk that some day the same killer that brutally killed a 5-year old or raped and strangle a college student might return to the streets.
Crime is everywhere. Wherever we look, we find criminals and crime. Criminals have become a part of our daily lives. Does this mean we let them be the darkness of our society? No, definitely not. Eliminating crime and criminals is our duty, and we cannot ignore it. Getting the rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. Some criminals commit a crime because they have no other option to survive, but some do it for fun. I do not advocate death penalty for everybody. A person, who stole bread from a grocery store, definitely does not deserve death penalty. However, a serial killer, who kills people for fun or for his personal gain, definitely deserves death penalty. Death penalty should continue in order to eliminate the garbage of our society. Not everybody deserves to die, but some people definitely do. I support death penalty because of several reasons. Firstly, I believe that death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime. Secondly, it is true that death penalty is irreversible, but it is hard to kill a wrongly convicted person due to the several chances given to the convicted to prove his innocence. Thirdly, death penalty assures safety of the society by eliminating these criminals. Finally, I believe in "lex tallionis" - a life for a life.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/02/us-usa-prisons-idUSTRE5215TW20090302 http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/methods.htm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8856277/Joanna-Yeates-family-statement-in-full.html. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/mexican-prisoners-jailbreak http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates. http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-innocence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case#Attempted_burglary_and_murder http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/international-law.
Murder should be punished in a manner similar to the way it was committed. A man convicted of a cold-blooded shooting murder such as a drive-by shooting should go before a firing squad. Each man in that firing squad would fire one at a time so the convicted would not know when the angel of death would come for him. A man convicted of strangulation murder should be hung at high noon. A man convicted of a beating death should be slowly beaten until death comes. A Jeffery Dahmer style murderer should suffer dismemberment and decapitation.