Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Is capital punishment morally acceptable
Controversial capital punishment
Is capital punishment morally acceptable
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Is capital punishment morally acceptable
Capital punishment has long been a topic for heated debate throughout the United States of America and the civilized world. For many politicians, the death penalty has been a key pillar to winning a state or election; and, to some extent, politics have been a key influence in America’s justice system. Many nations have outlawed capital punishment, with the United States included between 1972 and 1976. In the United States, there has been a renewed movement for this “eye for an eye” method, citing such arguments as “deterrence” and “victims’ rights.” This movement begs a single question – is there any economical, legal, or statistical support for the ultimate punishment? This article will strive to answer that question by evaluating several key issues (be they supporting or otherwise) concerning capital punishment – the legitimacy of ‘deterrence,’ the legality of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause, and the cost associated with putting a man to death in relation to the cost associated with life imprisonment.
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The key phrase to examine when determining the constitutionality of capital punishment is “cruel and unusual punishments.” The question that must be answered are ‘what makes a punishment cruel and unusual’ and if or how these standards apply to capital punishment. According to Supreme Court Associate Justice William Brennan “the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause ‘must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” (Brennan 32). Judging from thi...
... middle of paper ...
...ministration of Justice. Report and Recommendations on the Administration of the Death Penalty in California. 2008. Web. 2 Mar 2011. .
Coursey, Ethan. “Death Penalty Survey.” Survey. 22 Feb 2011.
Marshall, Thurgood. United States. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153. , 1976. Web. 1 Mar 2011. .
Radelet, Michael L., and Ronald L. Akers. "Deterrence And The Death Penalty: the Views Of The Experts[*]." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 87.1 (1996): 1. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 Feb. 2011.
Radelet, Michael L., and Traci L. Lacock. "Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates?: The Views of Leading Criminologists." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 99.2 (2009): 489-508. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 Feb. 2011.
...n some peoples’ opinions’ that would be a horrible idea, but I think that if someone was to make people suffer and put them through absolute misery, they should not be let off the hook very easily. So instead of the Eighth Amendment being “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” (Legal Dictionary), it should be “as “Excessive bail or fines should not be imposed unless it fits the crime committed, cruel and unusual punishment should also not be imposed unless the need was to arise where the crime was extreme enough for all the jury members should agree on a cruel or unusual punishment.”.
The “cruel and unusual” clause in the eighth amendment states that “cruel and unusual punishment” such as torture or lingering death can not be inflicted on anyone as a form of execution. It is however permissible under the 8th Amendment to execute a convict by means of hanging, shooting, electrocution, and lethal gas.
According to Radelet & Borg (2000), deterrence was, in the past, the most frequently-cited reason for arguments in support of the death penalty. The claim stems from a belief that potential criminals will be less likely to commit severe acts of violence if they know that those who carried out similar crimes before them were put to death – in much the same way that heads on pikes at the gates of a city were intended to deter criminal activity in the Middle Ages. Recently, however, many studies have concluded that the death penalty offers no significant deterrent effects, and the few which claim to find support for these effects have received substantial criticism (Radelet & Borg, 2000). The majority of both criminologists and law enforcement officers surveyed expressed that they do not believe the death penalty offers any difference in the amount of violent crimes committed (Radelet & Borg, 2000).
Many call capital punishment unconstitutional and point to the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution for support. The amendment states that, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment be inflicted." Those who oppose the death penalty target the 'cruel and unusual' phrase as an explanation of why it is unconstitutional. Since the Framers of the Constitution are no longer with us and we base our nation on the words in which that document contains, the legality of the death penalty is subject to interpretation. Since there is some ambiguity or lack of preciseness in the Constitution, heated debate surrounding this issue has risen in the last ten years.
Capital punishment in the United States is a highly debated topic. Arguments that want to get rid of this method of punishment usually mention the many problems that capital punishment is plagued with. The death penalty has many issues that cannot be resolved, and since these issues can’t be solved, the death penalty should be abolished. “The irrevocable nature of the death penalty renders it an unsustainable and indefensible remedy in an imperfect justice system.” (Evans 3) Even though the death penalty has been around since the 18th century, capital punishment has many issues such as wrongful convictions and high costs, proving it should be eliminated.
Capital punishment is an age-old practice. It has been used in civilizations for millennia, and will continue to be used for millennia to come. Whether used for the right or wrong reasons, capital punishment is unmistakable in its various forms. From hangings, to firing squads, to lethal injections, capital punishment and the associated proceeding have evolved over time. There have been many arguments against capital punishment, many of which still hold true. As capital punishment has evolved over time, however, many of the most valid arguments have been proven all but null. Capital punishment still has its ethical and moral concerns, but as it has evolved over time these concerns have not necessarily become less valid, but fewer in number when specifically addressing capital punishment. The proceedings that come hand-in-hand with capital punishment, however, have become increasingly more rigorous and controversial and are the main focus of most capital punishment concerns.
“The question of whether the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment has been debated for decades or longer by scholars, policy makers, and the general public” (Radelet & Lacock, 2009).
“The case Against the Death Penalty.” aclu.org. American Civil Liberties Union, 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013
The death penalty has been part of the American judicial system since the country’s founding [1]. Most people see the death penalty as the fairest way to punish those who have killed, because, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, “the instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man.” I do agree that the deliverance of justice is an important factor in any public policy. However, it is also important to consider the more pragmatic aspects, like the cost to the state. It is possible that the financial cost could be outweighed by the societal benefit. However, upon researching the death penalty, one would discover that the cost of capital punishment is unreasonably high, particularly in the state of California, especially when we consider how rarely the death sentence is actually implemented. In times like these, times of economic turmoil and scarce financial resources, the state cannot afford a system that is so expensive and also so rarely utilized. I believe that, in the state of California, the death penalty is overly expensive and so rarely implemented that it should be abolished.
While one person lays with their wrists circumscribed to the worn leather of the gurney, another person holds two skin-piercing needles. The individual holding the needles is an inexperienced technician who obtains permission from the United States federal government to murder people. One needle is held as a precaution in case the pain is too visible to the viewers. Another dagger filled with a lethal dosage of chemicals is inserted into the vein that causes the person to stop breathing. When the cry of the heart rate monitor becomes monotone, the corrupt procedure is complete. Lying in the chair is a corpse when moments ago it was an individual who made one fatal mistake that will never get the chance to redeem (Ecenbarger). Although some people believe that the death
During the 1970s, the top argument in favor of the death penalty was general deterrence. This argument suggests that we must punish offenders to discourage others from committing similar offenses; we punish past offenders to send a message to potential offenders. In a broad sense, the deterrent effect of punishment is thought to b...
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
During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes. ”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment.
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.
Schonebaum, Stephen E. "A Swifter Death Penalty Would Be An Effective Deterrent." Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? San Diego: David L. Bender; Greenhaven Press Inc. 1998. 18.