Reintroducing the Death Sentence in Britain
The death sentence is given to people who have committed murder of any
kind. It has been around for hundreds of years and has been used in
many different ways. It was abolished in Britain a long time ago. This
essay will look at the question 'should Britain reintroduce the death
sentence?' It will contain my own comments and arguments for and
against bringing back the death penalty.
The death sentence can be used as to deter potential murderers from
committing murder. The view is that if the potential murderer sees
what the consequence is of committing murder, they will think twice
about committing it. Unfortunately this does not always work because
in states of anger people do not realise the consequence. However it
is a relatively good way of deterring criminals because they would not
want to end up dead. I think this is a good way of using the death
sentence and eventually all the murders will be abolished.
However, there is the argument that the executioner will become a
murderer if he kills the criminal. Therefore in theory the executioner
should be executed. That would mean the person who executed the
executioner should be executed and a loop is created. So, in theory,
the only way to stop this loop is if the death sentence is abolished
for good.
A lot of money is spent on keeping prisoners in jail and this money
should be spent on things that could make a difference such as more
hostels for homeless people or more funds for education. The death
sentence rids jails of the murderers as well as the rest of the
country and frees money that can be spent on these things. Also, the
money is used to give the prisoners quite a comfortable time in jail;
they are given good meals, showers and so on. They are also taught in
jail and are given jobs such as jail librarian. This could be seen as
the prisoners gaining no punishment at all for what they have done and
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”.
killing and letting die. Some argue that letting die, which is the action considered to take
As a natural phenomena that occurs frequently yet is still not completely understood, death has confounded and, to a certain degree, fascinated all of humanity. Since the dawn of our species, people have tried rationalize death by means of creating various religions and even attempted to conquer death, leading to great works of literature such as the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Cannibal Spell For King Unis.
Since the last execution in Australia in 1967 of Ronald Ryan and the abolition of capital punishment in Australia in 1973 imprisonment has been the only option as a sanction for murder. A survey conducted in 2009 demonstrated that a clear majority of Australians (64%) believed that imprisonment should be the punishment for murder as opposed to 23% stating the death penalty should be used and 13% did not wish to comment. The death penalty is not an effective punishment for all cases and there has not been any solid evidence stating that it is a more effective deterrent than imprisonment. Furthermore capital punishment possesses the risk of executing the innocent, which has happened or almost happened numerous times in the past such as Colin Ross. The death penalty is also a breach of the Universal Human Rights. Additionally although there is belief that detaining criminals actually costs taxpayers more due to court processes, the method of execution and many other factors. While imprisonment should be the highest sanction for crime, in some cases this is not effective, such as the case of Australian serial killer Peter Dupas. As a result, imprisonment is the only appropriate option for murder in majority of instances, however in some cases it is evident that capital punishment is necessary for the safety of society.
Death comes to all in the end, shrouded in mystery, occasionally bringing with it pain, and while some may welcome its finality, others may fight it with every ounce of their strength. Humans have throughout the centuries created death rituals to bring them peace and healing after the death of a loved one.
The Rehablitation of Offenders Act 1974 has been put in place to ease offenders back into society and also make sure that offenders’, that are given under a 30 month prison sentence, convictions are spent. Therefore employers of the recent offender are not allowed to discriminate against that person, allowing the offender more opportunity to gain employment. This briefing note outlines the strengths and weaknesses of rehabilitating sex offenders. By analysing the literature and statistics surrounding rehabilitating sex offenders there is clear evidence that treatment programmes are effective. Punishment, Rehabilitation, Deterence and Incapacitation are the four main objectives for the Criminal Justice system.
(A4) If being dead is not a painful experience, then being dead is not bad for the one who is dead.
Imagine your laying in a hospital bed hooked up to various machines. The doctors and nurses are persistently coming in to check up on you while you’re trying to get through the pain, weakness and slow wasting away of your body. On top of that you are grieving the side effects from numerous drugs, constipation, restlessness, you can barely breathe. You have no appetite because you are constantly throwing up. The doctors have given you little to no chance of survival; and death is at hand, it is just a matter of when. You have said your goodbyes, you have come to terms with dying and you are ready to meet your creator. Now if you had the chance to choose how and when your life ended would you take advantage of it?
The death penalty has been around since the beginning of time as a means of punishing criminals, undisputed until the last century or so in terms of whether or not it is an ethical practice. The proponents for the death penalty offer up its ability to deter crime as their main reason for supporting it, their view supported by a functionalist sociological view in that using the death penalty, enough fear will be generated that people will refrain from committing the types of crime that the death penalty is applicable to (Schaefer, 2009). Another reason for favoring it are of an emotional nature; if a person commits a crime of a particularly horrible nature, many may feel that they deserve the death penalty, feeling that “an eye for an eye” is befitting for such a case (Jillette, Teller, & Price, 2006). It should be asked though, is emotional response and a theory of deterrence enough to justify the use of the death penalty? In this paper, I will answer that question and others.
The Debate of Reintroducing Capital Punishment to Britain Capital punishment is the death penalty for people who have committed terrible crimes, such as murder. Since the abolition of the death penalty in 1964, the murder rate in the U.K. has been steadily increasing. Murder is the ultimate crime; therefore shouldn't murder demand the ultimate penalty? America suspended the death penalty in the early sixties, like Britain, but in 1976, they re-instated it again. Statistics have proven that in 1994, in New York, 1200 people had been murdered, but later in 1995, the death penalty was introduced, and in 1998, the murder rate had dropped to just over 500 people.
Two major claims: death penalty serves as a deterrent and death penalty is morally justified because murderers can’t live and you have a right to kill them.
don’t want to think about, however some people embrace it and think about death in a different
On Tuesday, July 29, 1981, eight year-old Cheryl Ziemba, and her four year-old brother, Christopher, bodies were found in a coal dump in Old Forge, Pennsylvania. Only two days after the bodies were discovered, fifteen-year old, Joseph Aulisio, a member of the search party, was arrested for the murders. He had lured the two kids into a house that was under construction and owned by his father and shot them from only 10 feet away, Cheryl was shot in the head and Christopher had been shot in the chest. To this day there has been no motive established as to why Aulisio wished to kill these two kids. Nearly a year later in May 1982, a jury sentenced the then sixteen year-old to death, who was casually chewing gum when the jurors presented him with his sentence and then turned to his dad and pumped his fist in the air yelling “It’s party time!”. It has been 34 years since that conviction, and Aulisio continues to sit in jail with no signs of remorse. So why wouldn’t the death penalty be enforced with someone so inhumane and removed from society? Why not eliminate this being from society ...
There are three main “degrees of murder.” There is third-degree murder, which is a little more complicated than the other two. When people do not meet the standards for first-degree, or second-degree, murder they are usually classified in this category. A third-degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated. The next level up is second-degree murder. This degree is classified as an intended, but not premeditated, murder. The highest degree is first-degree murder. This is an intended and well thought out plan to murder somebody. Being charged with this degree is saying that you thought about how you were going to seek out and kill your victim. People who are guilty of first-degree murder could be tried for the death penalty. This is where it gets a little confusing for me. We murder these people because they murder someone else. It is a “lose-lose situation.” People say the victim’s family wants closure. I am sorry to say this but killing the murderer will not bring your family member back. The death penalty is crude and unnecessary.
Throughout time, death has been viewed in a negative light. In general, it is an event to be mourned and is seen by some as the end to existence. People do not usually seek death as an answer to their problems. In various pieces of literature, however, suicide is contemplated by the characters as the only solution to the pain and grief that they experience.