Supporters of this form of this sanction believe that capital punishment does more to protect and benefit society than to harm it, in that it could provide closure to a community or deter that community from future crimes (Kay). Some people would associate the death penalty with the saying “an eye for and eye” in that it provides closure to the affected families (Dobbs). Late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, Ernest Van Den Haag claims, “Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder... People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death” (ProCon.org). Naturally, people fear death, therefore people use this logic to claim that the threat of the death penalty daunts criminals who otherwise might not have been.
There are many reasons as to why I believe the death penalty should be legalized in all states, including deterrence and retribution. In contrast, critics view the death penalty as unconstitutional and irrevocable. The use of capital punishment greatly discourages any wrongdoers from committing any crime such as murder. Many people’s greatest fear is death; therefore if they know that death is a possible consequence for their actions, they are less likely to perform such actions. Ernest van den Haag, a professor and author of “Punishing Criminals:Concerning a Very Old and Painful Question” wrote about the issue of deterrence: “…capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else.
I agree with this statement because once a person is convicted of a harsh enough crime to be condemned to life in prison they should not be dependent on society’s hard earned cash. Not only does capital punishment clear up room in our already overcrowded prisons, but... ... middle of paper ... ...ty believe that the death penalty serves as the ultimate justice and that it will, in the end, deter murderers and promote the sacredness of human life. Abolitionists view it as harsh, unfair, and contradictory. They see hypocrisy in punishing murder by engaging in murder. Arguments for the death penalty are matched by those that support its abolition; the fight to abolish capital punishment seems to be far from over and only time will tell the story.
For all it aims to achieve, the death penalty has well documented weaknesses, not least of which is its brutality and finality, and it is these frailties that lead to the calls for its abolishment. The death penalty is inhumane, wrongly applied and completely unjustifiable irrespective of the crime. Life imprisonment without parole or pardon achieves all that the death penalty seeks to achieve without costing the society its moral standing. The human right to life is sacred and the constitution protects this right. Is it not ironic that the justice system based on the constitution should therefore seek to end life?
If someone took a life than that person’s life should also be taken. They should assume on consequences even if it means dying. The death penalty only punishes the murderer for what they already did. This goes with the saying “a life for a life”. The country should do everything humanly possible to prevent any individual to corrupt the society and it is the countries responsibility to protect their citizens.
Deontological people argue for the death penalty through retributivism which states that the punishment should resemble the crime, meaning that if you kill a person the only just punishment would be for the guilty person to be killed. One way a Consequentialist argues against the death penalty is, “that life in prison for murderers result in greater overall happiness or goodness for society than sentencing them to death.” (351). Human life for consequentialists holds great value so by keeping someone alive it brings more happiness. A deontological view can be taken to argue against the death penalty by affirming that, “human beings have inherent value and dignity, all persons have a right to life, punishment should be fair (and the use of capital punishment discriminates against minorities and the poor), or the punishment should fit the crime (and
There are chances that the system might convict an innocent citizen. There is no way to mend the mistakes we make. “‘We’re only humans, we all make mistakes,”’ (“Capital Punishment”) is a frequently used expression, but is it as true as anything can be. Therefore, the fact that there is a chance of an innocent life to be condemned to death should be enough to abolish the death penalty, but it is not enough for our government. Additionally, according to Amnesty International “‘the death penalty legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims.”’(“Capital Punishment”).
There are several reasons it should be in effect including: proof that capital punishment does deter crime that would warrant this sentence, retribution for heinous crimes, and the morality of punishing someone who has committed a crime so horrendous. The use of capital punishment greatly deters citizens from committing nefarious crimes, such as murder (“Justice Is Served with the Death Penalty”). In general, one of the things people fear the most is death; therefore they are less likely to perform heinous actions if they know that death is a punishment for it. Ernest van den Haag, professor at Fordham University, stated, “ …capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most, death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts….Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred.
They also believe that He is the only existence who has the right to take someone’s life, or “cast the first stone.” Which in turn means we as humans are not entitled to that privilege. 3 The use of capital punishment in today’s society is an incredibly controversial issue which will require a great deal of contemplation to answer the questions: to kill or not to kill? Many feel that the annihilation of this practice will solve a large number of the problems and questions about the death penalty that haunt our society today. How did you find cheater.com? : friend
Opponents of the death penalty will site several reasons to abolish death penalty such as the usage of death penalty as a deterrent, the cost of death penalty vs life in prison, unfairness in the application of death sentencing, and possible mistakes. Opponents would much rather focus on the rights’ of criminals than the victims and their families. Eliminating the death penalty as a method of punishment will only allow criminals to wreak havoc and chaotic in our community without the fear of death. When a person commits a crime, they are disrupting the order in the community. Justice help restore the disruption of that order.