Introduction: Job David Guerrero lived in downtown San Diego when he was suspected of attacking five homeless men with serious upper-body injuries. Two of which were found dead with their bodies set on fire. Guerrero was linked to the murders form eyewitness testimony and video camera footage. Guerrero should deserve the death penalty under the act of which he commits a murder. This policy of action is morally justified through Lex Talionis, Kantian ethics, Gelernter and the social contract. Although arguments such as Jeffrey Reiman’s might oppose the death penalty and support lesser punishment, my position is a stronger alternative.
Reason 1: According to Kant, one should be punished only because one has committed a crime, and the level of …show more content…
One most note that he accepts the principle of Lex Talionis, and even if the death penalty may be just for Guerrero we should avoid it because lesser punishment is not unjust. He argues that the death penalty has not been proven to deter future crime, and if it were effective enough then we would not be facing where we are. Police chiefs also second that the death penalty does not deter crime. Reiman’s strongest proposition against the death penalty is lesser punishment. Life imprisonment is substantially a better deterrent than the death penalty. Aside from the psychological pain execution imposes on beings, Reiman argues that it is not consistent with the purpose of societal progress (Reiman, 5). “We can say that growth in civilization generally marks human history, that a reduction in the horrible things we tolerate doing to our fellows (even when they deserve them) is part of this growth…” Reiman would go on to further object the death penalty due to its bias towards minorities and the poor. In this case, one may agree with Reiman given that Guerrero was living in apartments for the poor. The law would likely not favor
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
On the morning of April 19, 1995 a former soldier, named Timothy McVeigh, drove a truck outside of the Alfred P. Murrah government building in downtown Oklahoma City. Inside the truck was a homemade explosive device. McVeigh got out of the truck and walked to his getaway car. At precisely 9:02 a.m. the truck bomb exploded. Killing 168 people, including 19 children. Over 600 people were injured and close to 300 surrounding buildings took damage. This attack at Oklahoma City was the worst terrorist attack on American soil, until 9/11. Six years after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building McVeigh was executed at “United States Penitentiary” in Terre Haute, Indiana. At 7:14 a.m. on July 11, 2001 McVeigh was put to death by lethal injection. This terrorist was put to death and got the justice that was deserved. Now the American justice system is flawed especially when it comes to the death penalty, but
An inmate by the name of Gary Graham drew several protestors to a Huntsville unit in the year 2000; they were there in opposition to Graham’s execution. This day finally came after nineteen years on death row and four appeals. With him being a repeat offender he was not new to this side of the justice system, but after being put in prison he became a political activist who worked to abolish the death penalty. People who stood against his execution argued that his case still had reasonable doubt, he was rehabilitating himself, and his punishment would cause major harm to his family. Aside from that you have the advocates arguing that you have to set example for others, so you must carry out the punishment that was given, and while the execution may harm the offender’s family it will give the victims’ families closure for his crimes.
Rainey Bethea was a hardly a man, but a monster. He was a rapist, thief, and murderer. Bethea broke into the home of an innocent old woman. He proceeded to brutally strangle her, rape her fragile body until she took her last breaths. After the gruesome act he advanced into the home and seized the possessions that were most dear to her. He left the home without batting an eye. Shortly, after being arrested with the crime Bethea admitted to the allegations. He was summoned to the gallows in Owensboro, Kentucky. The hanging of Bethea was a well-known case of 1936. He was the last person to be publicly executed in the United States. Although not conducted publicly, today thirty-one states have the death penalty. The methods range from firing
As every day passes, prisoners wait patiently in their dreadful chamber, awaiting their execution day, which tends to result to physical and psychological torture. Consequently, this remains as the so-called righteousness of the death penalty, which is supposed to get rid of murderers, radicalism, and criminals that perform sodomy. Though, there are times when capital punishment goes horribly wrong, initiating the death of innocent prisoners, and instigating the prisoner to go through atrocious anguish. Moreover, the death penalty leads to additional damage to the victim’s family, since the death penalty entails the family to relieve the agony and grief of the death of their loved one for many years. Furthermore, capital punishment remains as the fundamental block to eradicate criminals, however, there are numerous drawbacks to the death penalty that lead to additional damage than solving the problem; therefore, Americans shouldn’t support capital punishment, unless their prepared to perform the undesirable job of killing the prisoners.
In this paper I will ask three people four different questions about their views on the death penalty. The first question I asked was “Why do you feel the death penalty is wrong?” Question number two, “Does the death penalty help protect the public and discourage crime?” Question number three, “Do you consider the death penalty cruel and unusual?” The final question, “Is the death penalty economically justifiable and cost effective?”
The death penalty was around for many years, though we do not really hear much about it today. The death penalty was used as a way of punishment for committing the most serious crimes. This punishment was executed in various ways, all of them leading to the death of the person being executed. However, there are reasons why this punishment is no longer being used today.
Death penalty has always been a topic of controversy. Interchangeably known as capital punishment, death penalty legalizes the authorization to sentence the execution of a criminal. Controversy that rise from death penalty involve the notion of ethics and epistemology. Many people questions whether it is morally right to take another person’s life, tieing into the 8th amendment that prohibits people from suffering from a certain type of punishment. Another factor is that what exactly determines whether a person deserves execution or not. The justice system has the legal dilemma of properly determining to what extent of a crime committed is reprehensible enough to face death or if it is not as grave and more suitable with merely a life sentence.
Since colonial times, approximately 13,000 people have been put to death using the death penalty? How do we know if any of those people were actually guilty? The Bills Of Rights outlines our rights as Americans in the United States. According to the 8th Amendment, there should be no excessive bail or fines nor there any kind of cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. Well that being said does that not go against what the death penalty is and what our 8th amendment stands for? How do you stand? In this paper I will list the reasons on why we should get rid of the death penalty which could really change how you feel on the how you stand.
“The death penalty is popular among politicians and the public in response to the escalating fear of violence. However, capital punishment actually makes the fight against crime more difficult. Executions waste valuable resources that could be applied to more promising efforts to protect the public. Additionally, innocent people are sometimes executed and the brutalizing effect executions have on society may result in more murders. For these reasons, the death penalty should be opposed.” (Morgenthau 14)
Edward I. Koch uses his essay “The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?” to defend capital punishment. He believes that justice for murderous crimes is essential for the success of the nation. The possibility of error is of no concern to Koch and if would-be murderers can be deterred from committing these heinous crimes, he feels the value of human life will be boosted and murder rates will consequently plummet (475-479). Koch makes a valiant effort to express these views, yet research contradicts his claims and a real look at his idea of justice must be considered in order to create a fair nation for all.
3) Though the claim that death penalty serves as a deterrent is valid, it is controversial in its soundness. It is sound that criminals fear the death penalty. Indeed, death penalty is fearful, as it is irrevocable and takes away the life and future of the criminal sentenced to it. However, the evidences supporting the second premise that is the core function of the claim for the deterrence argument is too excessive. In the letter, the author first presents his own experience to prove that the fear of death penalty deters offenders from carrying a gun. However, using an experience as a proof for deterrence for such a complex and serious punishment as the death penalty is extreme. While supporters of the author may respond with the author’s credibility as a police officer for thirty years, personal experience and insight can’t be extrapolated with possibilities of bias...
When a person inquires about death, they never expect that it will arrive early to meet them. A part of these innocent people never see it coming, but they are reconciled with death early as a result of another person’s malicious behavior. These people need to be punished by paying an equal price for what they stole from someone else: their life. Once a person is deemed a killer they are no longer a use to a society, they are a threat. Keeping them alive costs money that could be put to better use. Insurance is granted to them, even though they do not have a job and there are other hard working people who deserve it. They are given a decent home with accommodations that homeless people are forced to live without. There is an abundant amount of gray area in making a decision of this magnitude. The argument of being falsely accused often arises because once a mistake like this is made it obviously can not be undone. However, the Death Penalty is essential to keep the innocent citizens of the country safe.
Kant conditionally agreed with the death penalty. He created a conception of human dignity that gave people this special value. He believed that human dignity is a person’s worth and must be respected. Hence, the death penalty is approved because respecting human dignity would require capital punishment for a murderer. Human dignity is essential and special because everyone attains it. Human dignity is based on a special kind of worth that does not vary and is a value that everyone attains equally (this equality serves as the basis for equal human rights). Human dignity is not to be confused with the usefulness of a person, their talents, values, or luck because these are all extrinsic attri...
In order to defend my standing in this argument I will reason that the use of capital punishment has many benefits that trump any possible objections. Special attention will be given to the topics of deterrence, the families of the victims, and the increased population that has been occurring within our prisons. Any possible objections will also be assessed including criticism regarding the monetary value of the use of the death penalty and opposition to this practice due to its characteristics, which some identify as hypocritical and inhumane. My goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is not to use this practice extensively but rather to reduce the use to a minimum and use it only when necessary.
The death penalty has been an ongoing debate for many years. Each side of the issue presents valid arguments to explain why someone should be either for or against the subject. One side of the argument says deterrence, the other side says there’s a likelihood of putting to death an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder itself. Crime is an unmistakable part of our society, and it is safe to say that everyone would concur that something must be done about it. The majority of people know the risk of crime to their lives, but the subject lies in the techniques and actions in which it should be dealt with. As the past tells us, capital punishment, whose meaning is “the use of death as a legally sanctioned punishment,” is a suitable and proficient means of deterring crime. Today, the death penalty resides as an effective method of punishment for murder and other atrocious crimes.