Does this mean that we should throw out the death penalty because people, who did not really deserve to die, were killed? No, we have changed the laws, and no one gets the death penalty unless they deserve to die. Capital punishment should stay around. Yes, there are some maldistributions on the way it is opposed on a person, but those maldistributions are imposed on guilty people. Capital punishment is feared by potential murderers because once it is ordered on them they are not coming back.
People who commit crimes such as murder (mass or only an individual killing), rape and kidnapping should all be punished for what they have done. For example, the current issue with the Balibombings "mastermind". Amrozi Bin Nurhasyim is up for trial and if proven guilty, the death penalty will be imposed. Although he himself believes that he is a hero, I believe that as he killed so many and injured many more, the death punishment is the only fitting and adequate punishment. Many people oppose the death penalty because they consider it cruel.... ... middle of paper ... ... that Capital Punishment is the best way to go to punish people who murder and commit other drastic crimes.
Capital Punishment Capital Punishment is regarded by most as a successful deterrent to murder, but that is because these people don’t look at it as it is applied. According to retributivists such as Kant and Van Den Haag the guilty deserves to be punished. On the other hand, people against the death penalty like Bedau think that the death penalty is just as much an effective deterrent as life in prison. The most famous retributivist Kant, states that the guilty ought to get punished because they chose to act wrongly, and by punishing them, we are respecting them as a moral agents. This occurs because humans are given the ability to reason and act morally and thus if we don’t punish them we are not treating them as moral agents.
Jailing these people for life just doesn’t seem punishment enough. However, there is a sincere irony found within the death penalty. It brings to mind the parental saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.” The government, in essence, has granted itself rights that the individual has not. Furthermore, these i... ... middle of paper ... ...erson is murdered, it is one of the most heinous thoughts imaginable. But, to advocate execution will only leave us as hypocrites, rather than avengers of justice.
Killing is an evil act, but when it is committed, the only way to achieve justice is by dealing the killer the same hand they dealt an innocent. Human rights are violated by not eliminating the people who take someone else’s, because allowing someone who has murdered in cold blood to continue living is just as disrespectful to the person killed as the murderer taking their life in the first place. By eliminating these people, society is actually acknowledging the sanctity of human life. The death penalty is the moral solution because protecting a killer holds the same immorality as killing a person directly, and if we defend a killer, what makes us any better than them?
The government and judicial system should look deeper within the subject and try to come up with better solutions other than becoming “murderes” themselves. How can you trail someone for months or even years to finally come to conclusion that they must also die because of the crime they have committed? There are currently thirty-six states which allow the death penalty, and that must change. These states need to eliminate this on the grounds that it is unethical/barbaric and also the risk of punishing an innocent individual. Humans, as a genus, are known for their mistakes.
“There are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent", argues the ... ... middle of paper ... ...ent person on death row. There have been several cases that evidence were proven to exonerate death row inmates.
Some citizens were proven to be innocent long after their execution. It is here clear that in making the death penalty a mandatory ‘law’, a meaningful number of innocent people will be executed which is obviously not right. Death penal... ... middle of paper ... ...end to blame the death of the murderer on them, causing them to feel a huge guilt. Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation and The Journey of Hope is a group founded by all victims’ families who oppose the death penalty. They denote their differences from the ones who have taken their precious ones from them by refusing to descend to a murderer’s level.
Killing innocent people is by far the worst thing that could ever happen. People fight against the death penalty for the loss of innocent lives, which is also the reason why the death penalty was created. Killers kill innocent people all the time, but is the system sure that they caught the right person? The death penalty has also killed innocent lives. We will nev... ... middle of paper ... ...r guilt for their actions.
An easy way to answer these questions is to totally nullify capital punishment completely. One reason why the death penalty is so controversial is because many feel its cruel ways of punishment are unnecessary, even if the crime is murder, whether it be premeditated or unintentional. They believe there are other ways of condemnation besides execution. In the case of an unintentional death feelings are that the perpetrators should have the right to live, but have to face each day with the fact that they killed someone weighing on their conscience. On the other hand, such as with a voluntary murder, the ideas are somewhat similar.