The death penalty or as it is formally called capital punishment should be totally abolished for many reasons. First and foremost no one should have the right to take anyone else’s life, “ neither individually nor as a society representative, has the right to take another man’s life, even apart from the seriousness of his guilt.” (Thinkquest,).
Killing is a sin under God. “Thou shall not kill” is one of the ten commandments. Although not everyone in this country is Christian our constitution was founded on the principle that we are one country under God.
Throughout history there have been a number of arguments in favor of capital punishment. These arguments include the deterrent argument, the retribution argument and the protection of the public argument.
The deterrent argument claims that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to criminals because it instills fear sufficiently to stop criminals. However, statistically this has been found not to be true. “None of the many studies about the matter has been able to show the death penalty is more deterrent than other punishments.” (EZ,). Most people who commit the most serious crimes do so under unnatural circumstances. Fear is not even present. “ Most serious crimes such as murders…are committed when the criminal is blinded with passion, when emotions prevail over reason.” (Collegain,). Even those who plan crimes such as murders do so thinking that they are not going to be discovered. “Criminologist assert that the best way to discourage murderers isn’t by increasing the severity of punishment but by increasing the possibility of discovering the crime and condemning the culprit.”(Thinkquest,).
Retribution as a reason for capital punishment assumes that the public wants revenge. Although victims of crimes and their relatives deserve to know that the criminal is being punished for their crime, our country beliefs in rehabilitation. Penalties do not “have to tend to the revenge or the mere punishment of the criminal, but must reeducate him and rehabilitate him morally and humanly; and what rehabilitation would be possible towards a dead man.”(EZ).
To protect the public from dangerous criminals it is not necessary to kill them. Again, the idea is that our penal system is supposed to rehabilitate people. In fact, in order to carry out justice and fearing the neglect of details “and legal means to which the sentenced can apply, protracts trials and postpones the execution, so the condemned its often changed from the man who committed the crime with the result of executing pe3ople different from the condemned ones.
The Death Penalty practice has always been a topic of major debate and ethical concern among citizens in society. The death penalty can be defined as the authorization to legally kill a person as punishment for committing a crime, this practice is also known as Capital Punishment. The purpose of creating a harsher punishment for criminals was to deter other people from committing atrocious crimes and it was also intended to serve as a way of incapacitation and retribution. In fact, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution are some of the basic concepts in the justice system, which explain the intentions of creating punishments as a consequence for illegal conduct. In the United States, the Congress approved the federal death penalty on June 25, 1790 and according to the Death Penalty Focus (DPF, 2011) organization website “there have been 343 executions, two of which were women”.
There are many pros to the death penalty. Some claim that there is a preventative effect on potential murderers, although there is a lot of debate about this and just about every other argument for or against capital punishment. Another is the idea of incapacitation. Truthfully, why should someone have the right to live if they have taken that right from another person? The purpose why this writer supports capital punishment is because in observing victims’ families and their grief over murdered loved ones. This writer believes anyone who murders should be put to death. One reason for this is because people should not have the right to live after they have killed a fellow human being. The death penalty is a topic dealing with ethics, a set of moral principles or values. This issue is constantly filled with mix feelings and attitudes which the writer will attempt to present in the following paragraphs.
Capital punishment has as its aim not only the punishment of criminals but also the prevention of similar crimes. Unfortunately, capital punishment does not in fact deter criminal acts, as most supporters of the death penalty expect. Michael Meltsner points out that "capital punishment was justified as a deterrent to crime, yet the killing [has been] done infrequently and in privacy" (3); these factors lead to the ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent. The infrequent administration of capital punishment stems from the vast differences in each case and the legal variations among the states that permit capital punishment. Currently, t...
The use of the death penalty shows us that revenge is honored in our society. The cost of incarcerating an offender for their lifetime is much less than the cost of executing that same offender. In spite of the lower cost to imprison, we continue to execute offenders. To me, this mindset shows a system that considers the death of another to be a victory.
The capital punishment has been cited as a reasonable sentence by those who advocate for retribution. This is essentially when it comes to justice so that people take full responsibility for their individual actions. Studies have proved that the decision to take away life of a person because they committed a certain crime serves to perpetuate the crime in question. It also serves to enhance the progress of organized and violent crime. It has been noted that various flaws in the justice system has led to the wrong conviction of innocent people. On the other hand, the guilty have also been set free, and a plethora of several cases has come up when a critical look at the capital punishment has been undertaken. Killers hardly kill their victims deliberately, but they probably act on anger, passion, or impulsively. In this regard, it is not proper to convict them exclusively without
“Death penalty is a deterrent,” by George E. Pataki and “The Death Penalty Should Not Be Abolished,” by David B. Muhlhausen are two articles that support capital punishment as a deterrent of crime. “Legalized Murder: The Death Penalty Serves Revenge and Does Nothing to Solve Crime,” by Michael J. Ring and “The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished,” published by Amnesty International, are two articles that oppose capital punishment as a deterrent to crime by discussing the risks of the “inhumane” form of punishment. The following discussions show the contrasting point-of-views that make capital punishment one of the most controversial topics of today’s society.
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...
Over time capital punishment has been reformed from its original practice. Capital punishment has changed from public hangings to the current state of performing executions in a controlled environment with officials and physicians present. The states stopped preforming public executions due to riots that followed the e...
In 1967, Thorsten Sellin argued that “the presence of the death penalty in law and practice has no discernible effect as a deterrent to murder.” In the mid-1970s, Isaac Ehrlich countered after looking at national homicide rates between 1930 and 1970 that each execution deterred between seven and eight homicides. Many researchers have tried to duplicate Ehrlich’s results, but most of them have been unsuccessful. (Schonebaum, 2002) According to the website Illini for Life (Deterrence Factor,) although the murder rate has stayed relatively steady since 1976, the rate of execution has skyrocketed.
It should be recognized that murder is wrong in and of itself. Beyond that, it is wrong even as a secret plan within the heart. It is as old a human problem as Abel's death by his own brother, Cain.
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. The Death penalty restore social order and give the states authority to maximized retribution for the victims. When the state does not have the authority to maximum retribution, the public may put the law in their own hands. Although, execution may be cruel and inhumane, it is nothing compared to the fate of many victims in the hand of the murderers. The purpose of the death penalty is to provide retribution for the victims and their families. However, retribution is not revenge. “Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime” (Pojman, 2004).
Death penalty might sound like the immoral thing to do; however it’s effective. When a criminal is sentence to the death sentence, it spreads fear between criminals who committed a similar crime. It also, decreases the amount of criminals that were thinking about committing that particular crime. In the article, “The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives” Muhlhausen explains to us how death penalty sa...
Capital punishment is the most severe sentence imposed in the United States and is legal in thirty-eight states. The death penalty is a controversial subject, especially because the U.S. is the only western democracy to retain this consequence (Scheb, 518). I personally believe that the death penalty is a valid sentence for those who deserve it. Some believe it is not constitutional, but those who face this penalty are clearly suspect of a savage offense and therefore should be at a loss of certain rights. The arguments don’t end there once one considers that “the controversy over capital punishment becomes more heated when special circumstances arise” (Sternberg, 2). This issue brings up more arguments against the death penalty because of the constitutionally protected ban on cruel and unusual punishment which is protected by the Eighth Amendment. There have been nearly 15,000 executions that have taken place in America, the first in 1608 with the death of Captain George Kendall (Siegel, 410). Most of these were sentenced to death because of their own action of killing others. However, more and more crimes are now able to be punishable by death. This is the result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which “dramatically increased the number of federal crimes eligible for this sentence” (Scheb, 520). Even so, the federal government has yet to put someone on death row for a non-homicidal case. The arguments for and against capital punishment are lengthy and strictly opinionated, but are also important to see the evolution of our society as the majority view changes and new influences come about.
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.