Death Penalty Case Study

In “Kill Capital Punishment” by Janine Espino a Reagan High school student argues that Capital Punishment should be abolished in all fifty states, Espino’s position is vaild.

The death penalty has been one of the most controversial debates in the United States. Some believe that an eye for an eye is an effective mean of punishment while others believe that such mean of punishment is not effective in modern society. Edward Koch believes the death penalty affirms the sanctity of life. In the article by Edward Koch, published in The New Republic, “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life,’ he utilizes the rhetorical devices of ethos, pathos and logos to justify his position for the death penalty towards the people opposing the death penalty.

Despite the common misconception that capital punishment leads to a safer and utopian society, research provides evidence that there is no correlation between the two. During 1972, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled against the use of capital punishment in the Furman v Georgia case. This ruling arose after three African Americans were put on stand after being accused for different cases of murder and rape. Although death penalty was already imposed for these three cases, the court decided that death was “cruel and unusual” and consequently abolished the use of it. The US Supreme Court’s decision on the abolition of capital punishment was correct because capital punishment violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments, provides no evidence of deterioration of crime rates, and falls unequally on society.

Execution is the act of carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person. This is carried out either by lethal injection or electrocution. Execution despite its barbaric nature has survived in many legal system and will continue to because it: reinforces a state of security of the general public, detters other individuals from committing such crimes, and enforces the concept of cause and effect within the legal system. In the text “The Penalty of Death” H.L. Mencken discusses not only why he supports executions, but also the ripple effects this action has on a society. While in a text entitled “Death Penalty,” Anna Quindlen discusses her objections to execution, because, as she states:”it consists of stooping to the level of the

What justifies the death penalty and what factors cause us to be against it. In the end, we are still all human beings with different morals and ethical stances. We are a diverse world and no matter what, on both sides of the issue human lives is what the main focus is. Do we justify seeking an eye for an eye or do we let God decide when death will

The death penalty has been a major topic of debate in the United States as well as various parts of the world for numerous years. At this time, there are thirty-one states in which the death penalty is legal. Nineteen states have completely abolished it (“States with and without The Death Penalty”). Since its initial development back in the 1600’s, the death penalty has taken a different course in the way it is utilized. In its early days, the death penalty was greatly used and implemented for several offenses. Generally, the public sought out the stern implementation of the death penalty. But contrary to this, the use of the death penalty,

Reiman opposes capital punishment for several reasons. Reiman rejects the retribution rationale because retribution dehumanizes the person doing the punishing. As an alternative, Reiman advocates for humane punishment that is equal in severity, and that does not reduce deterrence. He stresses the importance of equal severity because a lack of equality will send the wrong message to society. Reiman believes strongly that: “[t]he available research by no means clearly indicates that the death penalty reduces the incidence of homicide more than life imprisonment does.” He supports this position for four reasons. First, he says that someone who is worried about punishment is just as likely to be deterred by prison as by execution. Second, he points out that more criminals are killed by policeman while committing the crime than being executed, so a smaller chance of delayed death does not deter the criminal. Third, Reiman contends that abolishing the death penalty demonstrates a greater respect for life, and this will deter people from murdering. Finally, he brings van den Haag’s argument that execution deters more murderers than a life sentence. His response is that if this is true, it must also be true that more people fear death by torture than execution so we should implement death by torture to save more lives. Reiman believes this is wrong. Reiman’s solution is that life in prison without a chance for parole would be an equal alternative to capital

Death penalty or capital punishment is a legal procedure carried out by the government of a state which sentences a convicted person to death. Capital punishment has been a matter of controversy in various countries for decades now. In this essay, Coretta Scott King talks about why she is against the death penalty. The main purpose of this critique is to focus on King’s arguments and evaluate their authenticity and credibility.

Death Penalty is a very ominous punishment to discuss. It is probably the most controversial and feared form of punishment in the United States. Many are unaware, but 31 of the 52 states have the Death penalty passes as an acceptable punishment. In the following essay, I will agree and support Stephen Nathanson's statement that "Equality retributivism cannot justify the death penalty." In the reading, "An Eye for an Eye?", Nathanson gives objections to why equality retributivism is morally acceptable for the death penalty to be legal. The first objection is that the death penalty does not "provide a measure of moral desert" (Nathanson). For the second, Nathanson states "it does not provide an adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment." The main objection is an "eye for an eye", or Lex talionis, and I believe it fails to support equality retributivism and creates punishments that are morally unacceptable. There is no way that

In America culture, the legal system has provided an equal criminal justice system no matter the race, gender, sexuality, religion, and culture. The death penalty is one of the heaviest debatable topic throughout history. Liberals question the mortality of ending someone life whether it’s a pleasant or virtually unethical ending. Many organizations have dedicated their life to discontinue the death penalty. Ever since the case of Furman vs. The State of Georgia; the legal system has established a guidelines and rules in order to receive the death penalty.

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. In this sense, capital punishment is limited by its ability to reduce crime rather than offer

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, and the debate about its abolition is the largest point of the essay written by Steve Earle, titled "A Death in Texas”. This form of punishment should be abolished for 3 reasons; First, It does not seem to have a direct effect on deterring murder rates, It has negative effects on society, and is inconsistent with American ideals.

The Death Penalty, loss of life due to previous crimes and actions, is believed by some to be extremely costly, inhumane, and cruel unlike some others whom believe it is just, right, and provides closure. The Death Penalty is not a quick and easy process. Most who get sentenced to deaths row wait years for their ultimate punishment of death. Some believe that it is not right to punish and kill a human for actions they have done because, they believe that the inmate should have another chance. Then others believe that it is right to punish someone for their actions especially if their actions involve killing another or multiple humans.

‘’An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,’’ said Mahatma Gandhi. The execution of someone who has possibly done a crime is an inhuman act. Death penalty is hypocritical and flawed. If killing is wrong, why do we kill when a criminal has done the crime of killing someone? In this essay, I will write why death penalty should end by writing about the violation of human rights, execution of innocent people, the fact that it does not deter crime and money.

Ronald Carlson wanted nothing more but justice for his sister who had been murdered. Ronald talks about how he would have killed the man with his own hands if he would have gotten the chance but his mind quickly changed after he seen his sister's murder being executed, he has a new view on the situation now. He talks about how watching the execution left him full of horror and emptiness. Ronald asks a question that should be addressed he said, “Our justice system should not be dictated by vengeance.” He asked, “As a society, shouldn’t we be more civilized than the murderers we condemn?” We should be more civilized, we shouldn't have the right to sentence people to death for three reasons, it puts innocent lives at risk, it's extremely costly