There are a number of practical arguments made for the death penalty. Because the death penalty is such a powerful construct, many argue that it decreases crime rates through deterrence. While many believe that the death penalty is more of a deterrent than a lengthy prison sentence, the very concept of ‘deterrence’ is argued by many as inapplicable to criminal psychology, especially if mental illness is involved. Criminals rarely think about the consequences of their actions and this is especially true with crimes of passion. By killing felons, the death penalty removes the burden of housing them within the penitentiary system.
What is capital punishment? Why has it been such a controversial topic in the United States? According to the legal dictionary, capital punishment is a punishment in the criminal justice system that sentence serious offender to death based off of their crimes committed. [ ] Capital punishment is imposed on criminals to deter crime. [arguments for] Not only to deter crime but have some form of retribution (justice) for the criminal’s activity.
For example, a people Q, have been murdered, the prosecutor presented a voice record about the defendant threaten to murder Q if Q does not want to accept his contract, such evidence may be Prima Facie evidence of intend to kill. Prima Facie evidence does not mean that it cannot be deny, it is use to prevent charges being made have no evidence to back it up and waste the time for court and other parties. According Section 173(f), if the judge decide no prima facie case then the defendant will be acquitted because the evidence is not sufficient. Presumption that the defendant are innocent until proven to the
Henry Louis Mencken argues the two most commonly heard arguments against capital punishment in his essay “The Penalty of Death”. Mencken believes that the death penalty is a form of “katharsis” for the immediate victims of the crime. Katharsis being a release of healthy steam. He states that criminal punishment is not solely for deterring other criminals of similar crime, but to give a peace of mind to the society that has been wronged. Mencken also argues the complaint of “that of a hangman is a dreadful business” (463).
Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory, however, yields a different conclusion. A Thomist would assert that Dudley and Stephen’s act of killing is morally wrong because it violates one of the four basic values: human life. By killing the boy, they are effectively taking his life. Conclusively, Dudley and Stephen’s action not only brings about the good effect of saving three men’s lives but it also brings about an evil effect – a young boy dying without his assent. This evil effect cannot be justified by the Doctrine of Double Effect because killing the boy was intentional and a direct means to the good effect.
I disagree with the statement “killing is never justified”. Killing another is never justified in some circumstances, but in other circumstances, killing can be justified. Killing cannot be justified if crime was intentional or was planned beforehand. This is murder because the event was planned and it one person was killed by another. For example, if someone plans to kill someone beforehand, then killing in that case will not be justified because that person did it knowingly.
And again to give you an example let’s assume you are opposed to the death penalty and you feel so strongly about it, you may never vote for murder in the 1st degree because if you didn’t vote, if you don’t have a unanimous verdict as to murder in the 1st degree, you may say well fine this is murder in the 2nd degree. Now, that certainly -- let’s finish. If the evidence shows its murder in the 2nd degree or Mr. Keith should be acquitted that’s what you ought to do, that’s what you’re here for. However, we don’t want you to have an opinion for or against the death penalty. Let’s assume you hate the death penalty, you may in other words automatically vote against 1st degree murder even though the evidence were overwhelming and say, “fine I’ll never vote for 1st degree, I’m going to sit here and vote 2nd degree or acquit because I’m opposed to the death penalty.” And by speaking with -- I don’t want you to get on there and say, “Oh boy I think everybody ought to, I’m law and order” which is fine.
Others declare capital punishment should be abolished because of its inhumanity, its opposition to mercy, and the Church is against it. The death sentence is strongly inhumane. It is very cruel of one to take the life of another, whether with an explanation or not. For justification of a crime, it is not needed to spare another life, the life of the offender. Any reason, whether great or small should not be valid enough to result in the ending of a life.
This is why euthanasia in specific physician-assisted suicide is causing a worldwide argument. Advocates want to legalize it for people with incurable diseases because of the suffering, lack of patience and financial problem they and their families face during the treatment. On the other hand opponents say it is just a fancy word for murder. That is why euthanasia must not be legalized because it is against basic religious beliefs, basic tenets of medicine and ethically it is still considered as a
In my opinion, these capital crimes should be limited to certain crimes such as treason, murder, rape, etc. Just to review, Thomas Jefferson tried to do the same by limiting capital punishment to just treason, but was unsuccessful. I agree with him a little bit. I would limited the different kinds of crimes to a smaller amount due to being a total amount of 2,817 waiting on death row as of January 2018 (Death Row Prisoners by State, January 22, 2018). Many also seem to argue that capital punishment is a waste of taxpayer funds and has no public safety benefit.
Euphiletus defends himself against the accusation that he unlawfully killed Eratosthenes. The act is not necessarily murder, as it was intentionally performed in the presence of witnesses, making it far from a secret killing. Euphiletus describes the series of events, specifically stating that the deceased “begged [Euphiletus] not to kill him.” He specifically cites the Law of Solon (“that an adulterer may be put to death by the man who catches him”) and concludes, “Thus, members of the jury, this man met the fate that the laws prescribe for wrongdoers of his kind.” Although he never outright claims responsibility for the homicide, Euphiletus’ words give the implication that he is responsible for the death of
No,George is not justified in the shooting of Lennie, According to the Religion, Law, and Premeditation. First, George is not justified due to Religion. In the bible it says hate is murder and whoever hate will not have eternal life. Others may say they don’t read the bible. Whereas one cannot find justification in George’s actions, In contrast George reason would be the ten commandments it says thou shall not kill.