Capital Punishment – A Potentially, but Unfortunately Optimal Choice
The death penalty is an extremely controversial topic, strongly because of the morals oriented around our country’s roots. America had the impulsive motivation to free ourselves of oppression. Many of the “utopian” ideals involving freedom were exaggerated, leaving us with the American stereotype in which there was a “freedom-blanket” thrown over the entire country. This past still distorts our view of right and wrong to this day as we idolize a dream founded out of impulse purely due to patriotism. There are three logical ideologies behind the validity of capital punishment that bring clarity to morality. Those of which being: without extreme influences of bias it is extremely hard to claim that no one ever deserved death, mercy’s reach can only change a small amount of people, and a conclusive end to someone’s life can often (but unfortunately) bring benefit to society. Some individuals like Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam
…show more content…
It may be important to open with a small side note: talking about the benefits of murdering people sound’s horrible and has developed terrible connotations. However, realistically, it is easy to conclude that the world could benefit from not having seen Adolf Hitler beyond the age of twelve, whether it ended up having to know it, or thinking it murdered an innocent child. That aside, the cost of grace is the allowance of suffering. In theory, the amount of opportunities for redemption we allow correlate directly with the amount of opportunities for more murder, wrong doings, and wasting of resources. At the point where someone is too dangerous and held in too much contempt to be given any sort of chance at redemption is the point in which they need to be strongly considered for capital punishment, as it is a waste of time, money, and life for them to continue growing old in prison
Oshinsky did a remarkable job explaining the history of the death penalty in a clear and concise way. While the text was fairly short, he effectively provided his readers with well documented and relevant information on how controversial the death penalty has been throughout the past few centuries. He undertook an exceptionally important issue that many Americans do not know much about, or may have conflicting feelings
Haag (2007) writes that the death penalty is feared more than imprisonment because of its finality in that the person is excommunicated from the living. As such, it is a more effective and necessary form of punishment. Berns (1996) writes that the law must be “inspiring or commanding ‘profound respect or reverential fear’” for it to be effective in deterring criminals. However, people in favor of abolishing the death penalty can argue that despite its deterrence benefits, the life of the murderer is important. This means that the victim’s life is less important even though the offender is the one who has committed a crime.
Some see the death penalty as the only means to extract justice for victims. Others see it as a morally reprehensible act where a second wrong is committed in order to make something right. With recent issues surrounding the death penalty in which execution hasn 't gone as planned sparking a nationwide debate, this is my outlook on why I 'm for the death penalty not only being abolished in the state of Texas but in addition to the entirety of the US..
In recent years, anti-death penalty propagandists have succeeded in stoking the fear that capital punishment is being carelessly meted out. Ironically, Of the 875 prisoners executed in the United States in modern times, not one has been retroactively proved innocent. The benefits of a legal system in which judges and juries have the option of sentencing the cruelest or coldest murderers to death far outweigh the potential risk of executing an innocent person. First and foremost, the death penalty makes it possible for justice to be done to those who commit the worst of all crimes. The execution of a murderer sends a powerful moral message: that the innocent life he took was so precious, and the crime he committed so horrific, that he forfeits
If the cold-blooded killing of thousands does not lower premeditated murder, there is really no point (because let 's face it, the saying “eye for an eye” is childish and socially unacceptable). This same conclusion was agreed upon in a recent poll by almost 90% of the world’s criminological societies (Facts About the Death Penalty). However in all honesty, the argument against the death penalty doesn’t just stop at its redundancy, but also its
A question we need to ask ourselves and our judicial system is if we should be able to kill, and who deserves the power to make that decision? Throughout history in America, our judicial system has always used retributive justice as a way to condemn crime and give out punishment. Retributive justice is a system that focuses on punishing the offender rather than preventing and rehabilitating. This way of dealing with crime has only harmed the people involved and created more problems like poverty, and unjust cases, and makes it harder for convicts to live life in the future. The book ‘Just Mercy’ written by Bryan Stevenson covers these issues that thousands of Americans face, even today.
David B. Muhlhausen wrote an article “How the death penalty saves lives,” With a heading of “Capital punishment curbs criminal behavior and promotes a safer country.” Muhlhausen talks about a man named Earl Ringo Jr, his purpose was to bring the question ‘How does the death penalty saves lives,’ into people's minds. The date of this article is Sept. 29, 2014, Muhlhausen works for US New and World Report. Muhlhausen informs ages 10 and up in this article because death penalty might be a little too harsh for little kids who still do not even know what death is yet. Therefor, Muhlhausen also states examples of how the death penalty can save lives.
I am not one to argue that capital punishment is without its flaws, nor am I one to argue that the death penalty is not inherently ugly in its entirety. I simply make the argument that the death penalty, or capital punishment, is a necessary evil. To accomplish this, I will begin by dissecting the arguments made by Stephen Nathanson in An Eye for an Eye. Nathanson states that for some crimes, it would not be considered morally acceptable to provide equal punishment to crimes committed. For example, I listed earlier that if we applied the equal punishment principle flatly across our justice system, it would require us to not only kill murderers, but also rape rapists, torture torturers, and kidnap kidnappers.
The topic of capital punishment presents a test of values. The arguments in support of and opposition to the death penalty are complex. In the end, this is a question of an individual’s values and morals. The topic requires careful thought to reach a reasoned position. Both sides of the argument are defensible.
Capital punishment “allows justice to be done to those who have committed the worst crimes out there” (Jacoby). Justice is shown each time a murderer’s life is ended by the death penalty. It allows for some peace, no matter how small, to be brought back to victim’s
Annotated Bibliography Draft Student name : Haider Zafaryab Student number: 2360526 Thesis Statement : Capital Punishment is a very controversial topic around the globe. I believe that it does more harm than good and breeds violence in society. Source 1: Radelet, M. L., & Akers, R. L. (1996).
Abstract America's founders assumed they had a solid grasp on the best way to punish criminals and keep peace in the new land. The Death Penalty Act of 1994 greatly expanded the number of crimes punishable by death. Today, there are many people who are conflicted on whether or not punishing someone by murder is acceptable or not. There are also additional agreements on the morality of the death penalty in regards to a human's right to live and the substantial number of wrongful convictions and deaths. The Bible also comments on the subject telling how murder is a sin, and God will give justice to all people when he returns.
Each year in many countries around the world people are murdered in the name of “justice”. But can justice really include a sanitised form of revenge? Many people are for the death penalty regardless of what it actually is. A major way that the death penalty is flawed is shown in the amount of innocent people who are sentenced to death.
Death Penalty According to the 2010 Gallup Poll, 64% of the United State of America are supporting the death penalty, I as an American am part of that 36% that is against it. I do not believe that we as human being should determine whether another person should live or die. A second reason that I am against the death penalty is for the reason that the accused person could be innocent and normally the accused person only has one court presentation and is only judged by the judge not a jury of their peer, and is sent to death row where they pay for a crime that they haven’t done. My final reason that i do not believe that the death penalty should count as a punishment for the American people is because, a person that has done a massive massacre shouldn’t just be able to leave the world just like that without paying and suffering for what they have done, Or should the death punishment continue as it is for it has a great benefit to us as citizens of the United States.
Capital Punishment is the death penalty for those who commit murder. The thought behind this punishment is a life for a life. There has been debate on if the death penalty is right or wrong. Some poeple want the death penalty to be illegal while others argue it is needed to deter crime. There are many valid arguments regarding the death penalty.