Many people believe that the death penalty is not justifiable, but does not justice mandate that criminals receive what they deserve? The punishment must fit the crime. If a burglar deserves imprisonment, then a murderer deserves death. The death penalty as harsh as it
According to researchers the death penalty would be very benificial to us as a society. For example the death penalty acts as a deterrent, the constitution also allows the death penalty, and the death penalty can promote happiness and well being to non offenders. So with the death penalty it could save many lifes. When a criminal gets away with murder or rape it gives them a chance to assault a second victim or even a third. Us living in a america, were born to live a good life, if we have twisted people who want to try to corrupt and kill why should we allow that?
Wrongful convictions have plagued the world throughout history. When crimes are committed the public feels ascertain a way about the situation. Depending on the severity of the issues, the last thing the public wants is for the criminals to get away. The pressure intensifies to catch some one for the crime. The technology advancements alone have led to several cold cases freeing the wrongfully convicted.
The positive and negative aspects of death penalty will be discuss to estimate the effectiveness of the practice. Many nations in favor of death penalty would argue that death penalty is an effective deterrence tool. Deterrence uses punishment to stop an offender from committing crime again. Deterrence can be divided into two categories: general and specific. General deterrence refers to punish a person to serve as an example to inflict fear to others and stop them from committing a future transgression, while specific is to stop one individual from reoffending.
Since it is the only right to ensure safety to the innocent people in the society from the most genuine crimes, capital punishment is sometimes right. Granted that society would be unjustified in taking a man’s life in discipline for any trivial wrongdoing, capital punishment is only reprisal for the greatest crimes. For an instance a person has killed another person, it is just fair that he give his own particular life consequently. Kidnapping and assault are likewise wrong that the individual who commits these acts deserves the best punishment, death. Justice requests that each individual be treated with others and by the society as he deserves.
It is understandable that society seeks justice when some form of crime is committed, more specifically murder. Often people think with a heavy burden in their hearts seeking the most severe form of punishment, in most cases the death penalty. For a few reasons I do not agree with this form of punishment. Morally, what are we teaching society when handing down a death penalty verdict? Justice should not be sought out in vengeance for the sake of an eye for an eye on the part of the victim, family members, and community, instead lets offer restorative justice.
With most people arguing about the crimes that should be listed as capital crimes and those that do not pass the test. Countries like Malaysia and Singapore classify have prescribed the death penalty on government officials caught up in corruption cases, in other countries corruption cases do not attract the death penalty against corrupt officials. There are states and parties that support the use of capital punishment for capital crimes; they advance the following arguments; i.) Retribution They argue that guilty people have to be punished and such punishment should be of equal measure to the crime they have committed. Justice A.S Anad and N.P Singh of the Supreme Court of India provided that, the measure of punishment depends largely on the atrocity of the crime committed the conduct of the criminal and the defenselessness of the victim.
One of the reasons that it was off the table was because he “didn’t have a long criminal record”(Mydans,1994). Another reason was that the death penalty was not “usually given for killing your spouse”(Mydans,1994). There are many pros and cons to capital punishment. For instance, a few cons would be that it has “been used on innocent people, a human’s life is taken away, and it’s more expensive to kill someone than it is to just keep them in prison”(Schmalleger). There are pros to capital punishment, like that they killed someone so “they deserve it or that it provides the only way that a society could get over their loss one”(Schmalleger).
This article discusses individual cases and crimes and gives analysis of the arguments made against death penalty in real world. Firstly it discusses the deterrence argument while going through a number of cases. The conclusion is that it has no effect on reducing homicides but ironically it breeds violence as in some cases offenders committed a capital crime in a territory where execution still prevails while they could have easily avoided it. Second thing discussed is the cost, the research in article shows that it costs significantly more money to put a convict to death than to incarcerate him for life in a prison. Moreover it is shown that in many cases criminals are executed while there are reasonable doubts in their convictions and some have avoided execution by just a few hours before being exonerated.
Thinking about how disordered this world is, death penalty is a good solution to solve crimes related to murder and sexual offence, which are soiling this world. If it is such a good solution, why not used it earlier? Death penalty has been a controversy, because of the fact that it violates criminals’ rights. However, if we think about it backwards, they cannot judge that it violates human rights; it is them who first violated innocent people’s rights. Besides, there are other reasons to support my idea, and furthermore persuade you.