According to Hinman (5), just punishment is the one that happens to those who are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is important because capital punishment is irreversible and hence only the guilty should be executed. However, there are many cases of innocent people who have been sentenced to death only to have their appeals granted at the last minute, or worse, denied and executed. It is on these grounds that Bedau (2007) argues against the death penalty because it is unjust and unfair. About unfairness, he goes on to add that racial and economic discrimination are also a factor to consider when meting out capital punishment. For example, it is correct to argue that people who kill white people are treated far worse than those who kill other races regardless of the offender’s own race. Between January 1977 and December 1995, 313 people were executed, 249 had murdered a white person. (Bedau, 2). This inability of capital punishment to show equality is one of its limiting factors. …show more content…
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
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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. To begin, the death penalty is unnecessary since it is ineffective at deterring rates of murder. In fact, 88% of the country's top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. In opposition, supporters may argue that it may indeed help to deter murder rates as they have
Source A argues that disparities between blacks and whites have been appalling in court. According to Source A, “If a black person kills a white person, they are twice as likely to receive the death sentence as white person who kills a black person” (2). This reveals that a black person has a higher rate of receiving the death sentence when tried for murdering a white person. If a white person is tried for a killing of a black person they have a 50% chance of getting the death sentence, then that means that a black person would receive a 100% chance of getting the death sentence for killing a white person.
“‘Death sentences represent less than one-tenth of 1% of prison sentences in the United States…,’” (Von Drehle, 9). Furthermore, death row is just a small fraction of the criminal justice system and can not be based on that alone. For instance, what many don't take into account is the justice systems allows for many states, such as the populous state of New York, to ban the death penalty. (state laws, p1)
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
In his essay, "The Death Penalty," David Bruck hypothesizes that the American people will eventually find that the death penalty is not the best way to punish a convicted murderer. Bruck develops this hypothesis by countering all pro-death penalty arguments with previous cases and specific statistics that apply to the argument. David Bruck's purpose is to persuade the readers to think for themselves on the topic and use what they know as a basis. Bruck uses an educated tone to establish credibility with the reader. He takes apart the views of the local mayor in an attempt to prove anyone wrong who might disagree.
The University of Texas-Pan American Essay #2 Anna Salkinder LSPI July 27, 2015 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.
Another issue that was discussed is the inequality of death penalty in practice. There have been serious issues with racial discrimination. For reference in cases with white victims and black defendants convictions occurred twenty two percent of the time while with black victims and white defendants with percentage dropped to a measly three
Russ Shafer-Landau provides us with two separate arguments about the death penalty in his academic book The Ethical Life, fundamental readings in ethics and moral problems. In the first argument, Justifying Legal Punishment, Igor Primoratz gives us substantive reasoning that opts favorably toward the necessity of the death penalty. Contrasting Primoratz, Stephen Nathanson, through An Eye for an Eye, provides us with an argument that hopes to show us that capital punishment, like murder, is also immoral and therefore, unjust. By the end of this essay, I intend to show that while capital punishment may not be the easy choice for a consequence and punishment to murder, it is, however, the necessary one.
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.
In conclusion the idea that the death penalty should be abolished can be supported by many reasons that include extensive evidence. With the death penalty still established we are putting innocent people's lives at risk, spending millions, and continue with racial segregation. The idea that someone's opinion in court can decide the fate of another person is
In the article, “The Death Penalty: An Opinion Essay,” written by Hamilton Spectator, states that is the first issue that he mentions is that the justice system is never 100% right all the time. While other situations can be changed by a judge a death penalty is unchangeable. Various times of similar crimes are conferred and diverse sentences are given out. As well as depending on the criminals race the consequences valid on the judge 's opinion.
Some see the death penalty as the correct punishment for severe crimes such as dealing drugs or murder, but others believe that the death penalty would let these criminals off to easy as they wouldn't have to live the rest of their sentence, or even life, in prison. Listener relevance: this punishment is currently being considered in the united states, included in the White House Opioid Crisis Plan. One of the reasons people want to keep the death penalty is that it’s “the ultimate warning”.
In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.