More handpicked essays just for you.
The christian viewpoints on capital punishment essay
Ethics about capital punishment
The ethics of capital punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Morality of Capital Punishment
We find ourselves at a moment when considerable national attention is being given to the morality of capital punishment, so let's discuss it in detail in this essay.
Although preserving the death penalty is nowhere near the top of my moral concerns, I can think of no persuasive reason-save perhaps one, to which I will come-why a clearly guilty terrorist such as Timothy McVeigh should not be executed. But I think we are often confused about why it may be appropriate-a confusion that manifests itself in our willingness to give therapeutic "closure" to families of victims by allowing those family members to view the execution.
If and when a state inflicts the death penalty on one of its citizens, it is imperative that such action be understood as public, not private, action. For Christians this is because the state, by God's ordinance, is authorized in certain circumstances to serve the common good even by taking the life of a duly convicted criminal. When God makes His covenant with Noah after the great flood, promising never again to destroy "all flesh," this promise is fulfilled in part through government, which, by executing just punishment, enacts fitting retribution for crimes. Hence, what none of us are permitted to do as private citizens on our own authority the state may do-not because it is itself "lord" of life and death, but because it is the authorized agent of the God who is that Lord.
Of course, many of our fellow citizens will not understand the work of government in terms grounded in Genesis 9 and Romans 13. As a people we are more likely to think of government in terms the social contract theorists taught us: as founded to stop the injustice that do...
... middle of paper ...
...ean elimination from the one community acknowledged by all to exist. And, of course, if execution is equivalent to elimination, it is indeed a godlike act. This, at any rate, is the point that really demands our attention. To the degree that in our public life-as a people-we decline to speak of God, it may be that we-as a people-ought not inflict a death sentence. But it will be very unfortunate indeed if, in our debates about the death penalty, we lose the capacity to articulate clearly the meaning of government, of punishment, and of justice.
WORKS CITED:
(1)Modern History Sourcebook http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hobbes-lev13.html
(2)Catechism of the Catholic Church http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html
(3)Catholicism and Capital Punishment http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html
There are some words that often return when we defend the death penalty: justice and human dignity. These words also constitute a foundation for that which is called democracy and civilization. These two realities can also be regarded as two bearing pillars in the defense of capital punishment.
Capital punishment is not an effective punishment or deterrent for murder or any crime for various reasons. To many prisoners, being detained in a prison is much more of a punishment than death as is it a constant, conscious deprivation of liberty and rights. This idea is represented though US Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh who claimed after dropping his appeals against his death sentence that he would rather die than...
In recent years, the practice of capital punishment has come under scrutiny. Some say that no longer holds the same impact as it once had. An article discussing the concept of the death penalty “Bungled executions, Backlogged courts, And three more reasons the modern death penalty is A Failed Experiment” by David Von Drehle is summarized and the thoughts, ideas, and principles therein are subject to response.
Is the death penalty fair? Is it humane? Does it deter crime? The answers to these questions vary depending on who answers them. The issue of capital punishment raises many debates. These same questions troubled Americans just as much in the day of the Salem witch trials as now in the say of Timothy McVeigh. During the time of the Salem witchcraft trials they had the same problem as present society faces. Twenty innocent people had been sentenced to death. It was too late to reverse the decision and the jurors admitted to their mistake. The execution of innocent people is still a major concern for American citizens today.
It's dark and cold, the fortress-like building has cinderblock walls, and death lurks around the perimeter. A man will die tonight. Under the blue sky, small black birds gather outside the fence that surrounds the building to flaunt their freedom. There is a gothic feel to the scene, as though you have stepped into a horror movie.
In this paper I will argue for the moral permissibility of the death penalty and I am fairly confident that when the case for capital punishment is made properly, its appeal to logic and morality is compelling. The practice of the death penalty is no longer as wide-spread as it used to be throughout the world; in fact, though the death penalty was nearly universal in past societies, only 71 countries world-wide still officially permit the death penalty (www.infoplease.com); the U.S. being among them. Since colonial times, executions have taken place in America, making them a part of its history and tradition. Given the pervasiveness of the death penalty in the past, why do so few countries use the death penalty, and why are there American states that no longer sanction its use? Is there a moral wrong involved in the taking of a criminal’s life? Of course the usual arguments will be brought up, but beyond the primary discourse most people do not go deeper than their “gut feeling” or personal convictions. When you hear about how a family was ruthlessly slaughtered by a psychopathic serial killer most minds instantly feel that this man should be punished, but to what extent? Would it be just to put this person to death?
In recent discussions of the death penalty, a controversial issue has been whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment or should it be abolished by the government of the United States. On one hand, Edward Koch’s argues in his essay of “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life” his thesis is, “Life is precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm this fact.” From this perspective, those who are convicted of murder, having their own life be taken from them, shows them the reality of what they have done in their life. On the other hand, however, David Bruck argues in his essay of “The Death Penalty” explaining his opposing belief against the death penalty and it is an inhumane action; it is also a waste because it is a blood thirst due to anger and retaliation. In the words of David Bruck, his view’s main
This paper will present facts that will help the reader understand the real nature of capital punishment, presenting the case against the death penalty for reasons of unconstitutionality and human rights violations.
"I wanted him, a mate with a mind as cold as the slice of ice within
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
Ethics and morality are the founding reasons for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, leading to the highly contentious nature of the debate. When heinous crimes are com...
Capital punishment has been a major debate in society of whether it should be administered to criminals or abolished. It is a source of controversy because of the effectiveness and morality of taking one’s life. People have argued it should be implemented because it is wrong to allow a malefactor to live, while others reason that too many innocent people are executed and therefore it should be removed. However, when taking all the positive and negative effects into consideration, it is clear that the death penalty is necessary because it deters future crimes from being committed, is a justified punishment for those who have murdered, and is carried out by a fair system that does not have racial disparities.
Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.
Americans have argued over the death penalty since the early days of our country. In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes. As of year ended in 1999, in Texas, the state had executed 496 prisoners since 1930. The laws in the United States have change drastically in regards to capital punishment. An example of this would be the years from 1968 to 1977 due to the nearly 10 year moratorium. 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. While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that is capital punishment being used for vengeance or as a deterrent.
Eaton, Judy, Tony Christensen. “Closure and its myths: Victims’ families, the death penalty, and the closure argument.” International Review of Victimology, Vol 20(3).Sep, 2014. : pp. 327-343.