When is murder ever justifiable? That is a question that needs to be asked when discussing the righteousness or wickedness of capital punishment, or more simply stated, the death penalty. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes the act of capital punishment as deliberately killing an individual for a criminal offense, usually a serious offense such as murder or treason (Murtagh, n.d.). Taken at face value, capital punishment is premeditated murder committed by a governing authority justified by law as the punishment for the crime committed. Early civilizations were far more liberal in the usage of death as a punishment for a crime, and the methods of carrying out this punishment were often brutal and inhumane by today’s standards. …show more content…
with the Code of King Hammaurabi which justified the use of capital punishment for 25 different crimes, and other early laws incorporating capital punishment included the Hittite Code, the Draconian Code of Athens, and the Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets (“Part 1,” n.d.). Each of these codes or laws had different interpretation on what violations of law justified the use of capital punishment. The wide range of offenses that warranted capital punishment, and the brutality of the methods continued for centuries. It wasn’t until the 17th century when the abolitionist movement took hold, most notably when Cesare Beccaria’s essay On Crimes and Punishment presented the notion that there was no justification for the taking of a life (“Part 1,” n.d.). Beccaria’s theories, along with similar observations by other theorists like Voltair, Bentam, and Montesquie, began to influence the social perceptions of capital punishment. For example, Thomas Jefferson attempted to reform American capital punishment laws to restrict them to only cases such as treason or murder. Dr. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, was one of the first Americans to challenge the impact of capital punishment as a deterrent, arguing that the practice did not prevent crime and actually increased the rate of crime (“Part 1,”
Is it justifiable to inflict the death penalty on individuals who have committed murder? As majority would have it, yes. There are many arguments in favor of capital punishment. Some of these include taking a murderer out of this world once and for all, and saving money that would be spent on them if they were given a life sentence, as well as the majority rule of citizens of the United States wishing it to stay. In Truman Capote’s nonfiction novel, In Cold Blood, Dick and Perry were assigned the death penalty for the cruel murders of four members of the Clutter family in a small town in Kansas. Not only did this pair of men deserve what they got, but it is also better for the state that they were executed.
Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.
American colonies were introduced to the practice of capital punishment, through European colonization. The offenses punishable by the death penalty in each colony varied from stealing, to denying the existence of God. Ceasre Beccaria’s 1776 essay, titled On Crimes and Punishment acted as the chief catalyst behind the abolition movement against the death penalty. In his essay, Beccaria asserted that the death penalty deprives men of life, true deterrence resulted from imprisoning criminals and using this as an example to show the value of freedom and laws, and that the death penalty be used only in cases of treason. Beccaris’s rationalism induced Thomas Jefferson to attempt the first reform effort in the United States of America. Jefferson proposed a bill to Virginia under which capital punishment was only applicable to murder and treason. Although the bill was defeated by a single vote, Jefferson’s hope for reform still persists through modern day reformists. Currently, the debate over capital punishment rages on with fervor on both ends. Those in favor of capital punishment find it necessary in deterring future murders, the right way of punishing murders, bringing closure to victims, and for making society feel safer. Although their argument seems sound, after scrutiny it can be asserted that it is in fact irrational. The death penalty is an improper way of punishing criminal as it is barbaric, immoral in taking life, and flawed.
I have heard a lot about the death penalty. and feel that the arguments against it are not at all convincing. Some people argue that capital punishment is morally wrong. They feel that killing someone for their crime is murder. In any dictionary it states that murder is the unlawful act of killing.
Cesare Beccari was known for the idea that laws are the conditions under which independent and isolated men unite to form a society. He believed in the philosophy of punishment and that the purpose of punishment should be deterrence rather than retribution (Schmalleger, 2012). Beccari felt that punishment should be imposed to prevent offenders from re-offending. He also felt punishment was a means to an end and not an end in itself (Schmalleger, 2012). He felt crime prevention was more important than revenge (Schmalleger, 2012). Beccari argued that punishment should be prompt and swift. However, Beccari felt the punishment should only be as severe as the crime. Beccari felt that treason was the worst type of crime and should be punished
Capital punishment barely made its way into American society. In Britain, public executions were festive and frequent in the 15th century. At the same time a movement to abolish the death penalty gained support throughout Europe. In 1753, Russia became the first important nation to ban the death penalty. The English instilled the death penalty upon America when it was just a colony. Ben Franklin opposed the death penalty as he helped write the Bill of Rights and the well alluded to 8th Amendment. In 1846 Michigan was the first to repeal capital punishment. By 1917, ten states had repealed capital punishment.
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.
Proponents of capital punishment believe that killing criminals is a moral and ethical way of punishing them. They feel there is justification in taking the life of a certain criminal, when in fact that justification is nothing more than revenge. They also feel that the death penalty deters crime, although there have been no conclusive studies confirming that viewpoint (Bedau).
... found justice for the victim who lost their lives at the hand of a criminal. The critics of capital punishment argue that the government over reached it authority pertaining to the death penalty and have sought to judge in God stead. However, the advocates of capital punishment argue that many nations whether modern or ancient has used capital punishment as a method of justice. This author think that capital murder is a debatable issue that should always be approach with caution.
Murder is an inexcusable crime that deserves harsh penalties when committed. In the short story, “Just Lather, That’s All” by Hernando Tellez, murder as a means of revenge is unjustifiable. Murder as a means of revenge is unjustifiable in the short story "Just Lather, That's All" because the barber is too proud to kill, the barber has a risk of being executed, and the barber is not a killer. All in all, murder is an unforgivable crime.
In my opinion capital punishment is wrong. The death penalty is the center of much debate in society. This is due, in part, to the fact that people see only the act of killing a criminal, and not the social effects the death penalty has on society as a whole. Upon reading about the death penalty, it was found to be an unethical practice. It promotes a violent and inhumane society in which killing is considered okay. Since there are alternatives, the death penalty should be abolished. Some people believe capital punishment to be cruel and unusual. Others believe that a person who kills, should themselves be killed. This statement alone raises the question, "How should they be killed?" The question that should really be asked is, "Should we kill at all?" Would it be morally correct to kill someone just because they have killed someone else?
There are many people that still believe that Capital Punishment is the best way to go to punish people who murder and commit other drastic crimes. I believe that murders should have the Death Penalty imposed to punish them for taking someone. else's life, although everyone has their own opinion and that is fine. to have a different opinion. Whether Capital Punishment is ethical is also up to your own beliefs, and I hope this essay has given you an insight into Capital Punishment and help you determine your own.
... middle of paper ... ... There must still be a punishment inflicted upon those who deviate from the understanding that killing is wrong, and the punishment must be strong enough to discourage others. I feel that the most effective punishment is complete social and sensory isolation, as well as life in prison.
I believe that under certain circumstances that capital punishment should be allowed because if someone is going to commit mass murder they should pay with the ultimate human right which is of their life. This topic has been widely thought of in the world with a few philosophers really encompassing my views. Those are the views of Ernest Van Den Haag and Bruce Fein. Philosophers who oppose our views are such like Justice William Brennan and Hugo Adam Bedau. I will prove my point using the ideas of deterrence and morality of the issue of capital punishment. If the government would show that if you kill someone there will be a consequence for their actions and that the consequence would be equal to what they have done. The population will see that it isn’t worth taking another humans life. If we were to kill people that are committing these mass killings of innocent people there would not be as many criminals around. Therefore the streets would be a place people wouldn’t be afraid of anymore.
Many people are split on the idea of capital punishment because it involves death. I feel that capital punishment is morally and ethically acceptable because it rids society of our worst criminals. Many people argue that killing criminals who kill is just as bad as being the criminals. For one the criminals killed innocent people who had no idea what was coming, and had no way to prevent it. The criminal who commited the crime in almost all cases had to commit first degree murder, which includes some planning of the act. To plan an act of murder and taking someone’s life is beyond emotion, it is psychological and takes some rationalization. If no rationalization takes place, then it can happen again.