A judge may choose a life penalty instead of a death penalty in the hope of the criminal’s rehabilitation; while this goal is likely feasible for the committer of a lone, spontaneous crime, multiple premeditated offenses like those of serial criminals render any form of rehabilitation highly unlikely (Bradbury, "The Death Penalty Affirms the Sanctity of Life"). Therefore, serial criminals should be considered for death row. Another common objection to the death penalty is the chance that an innocent person may be sentenced to death and executed. Likewise, even if they are found innocent, the consequences of their time on death row would follow them throughout their lives. Walter McMillan suffered due to the perjury of witnesses, whom law enforcement coerced to provide false testimonies placing McMillan at the scene of a murder.
Today they have shifted their efforts to focusing on the economic effects of the death penalty. In the efforts of convincing state legislatures to abolish the death penalty, the Anti-Death Penalty Movement focused “ on the problem of wrongful convictions” (McLaughlin 690). These arguments along with the many other issues exposed by the Anti-Death Penalty Movement, have succeeded in applying pressure to state legislatures on the topic of abolishing the death penalty. Another major factor that has contributed to the decline of the death penalty is the public 's moral view on the cruelty of the executions. As one of the most popular and widely accepted methods for carrying out the death penalty, death by lethal injection is considered the safest and most human method of execution.
What exactly does the phrase, “Eye for an eye” really mean then? An “Eye for an Eye” means if a person commits a crime, they too should be punished. The Death Penalty is the “Eye for an Eye” punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. But is this form of punishment the most fair and just way for society, the community, the perpetrator, or even the family members whose loved one was killed? What justice does it bring, except for the
I don 't think it should be abolished simply because innocent people have been executed. There are many more innocent people that would be killed due to there being no capital punishment. As well as this capital punishment works as a deterrent and makes people think twice about comitting as they are aware of the consequences. A crucial reason why I think capital punishment shouldn 't be abolished is the fact that it leaves the majority of society happy. Some critics of my viewpoint might point out that capital punishment goes against our human rights.
Everyday in our country there are killings being committed by innocent people who made a choice they would never even think necessary. The choice to kill another is rarely even a choice, but a sacrifice. Many times in our society we think of killings as murder, but this simply isn’t always the case. Many of those who are forced to make such tough decisions are victims or at the very least, well-intentioned people who are trying to end someone else’s suffering. In the case of Capital Punishment, those who murder should pay the ultimate price for something they have taken themselves… their life.
And how will this justify the issues of male sex offenders from repeating their sex crimes. While there are many pros to chemical castration, the side effects outnumber the real issue. Chemical castration goes against a person’s human rights, it also is an option the government hands out so that the offender can avoid jail, yet they are still suffering due to their health’s side effects. Chemical castration is offered to sex offenders, sex abusers, and child molesters who are serving time in prison for committing specific crimes in exchange for shorter prison time and to those who are in the process for release as time served. The process of administering a Depo-Provera injection or pill to sex offenders is to lower their testosterone levels and decrease the sexual desires to preventing them from repeating the criminal acts.
This is what the courts have seemed rightful to punish them for their crimes. In addition to these institutions are some that implement the death penalty; the maximum limit to prison sentences. I firmly believe in the death penalty as the maximum sentence as it is the worst possible outcome for a person, losing their life. In conjunction though, this punishment is only to be inflicted on criminals who do the worst of the worst, such as terrorists who have killed many citizens, mass shooters, serial killers, and repeated offenders of rape; all of which must lack discrepancies of psychological behaviors or decisions and had free will of their choices and desire to commit their crimes. While the death penalty does conflict with utilitarianism, I believe that getting rid of such people as above, will maximize the communities’ happiness as they would no longer be a burden to our society; through space limitations, harm toward guards, and monetary expenses (debatable).
Mandatory sentencing laws often target moral vices like alcohol, sex, drugs, and to friendships and family via prohibition, and crimes that threaten a person's livelihood. The idea is that there are some crimes that are so serious there is no way to accept the offender back into the general population without first punishing them sufficiently. Some crimes are viewed as serious enough to require an indefinite removal from society by a life sentence, or sometimes capital punishment. It is viewed as a public service to separate these people from the general population, as it is assumed that the nature of the crime or the frequency of violation supersedes the subjective opinion of a judge. Remedying the irregularities in sentencing that arise from judicial discretion are supposed to make sentencing more fair and balanced.
It is irrelevant to consider whether the bullet had killed B or harmed anyone, what was important is that Person A deserves the punishment because of causing harm to others. Dolinko has mentioned that retributivism is the primary basis of support for the death penalty in the United States and he has mentioned that the majority of the people supporting these do so on retributive grounds. We always have to keep in mind that punishment is different from revenge and that these offenders should deserve the punishment that they are
This makes it difficult for police to track serial killers and link them to the crimes. Thus, this often leads to higher crime rates among serial killers and places them in a different category. Thus, the nature vs. nurture argument continues to remain prevalent in the discussion regarding serial killers. Some scientists contend that humans are naturally violent and aggressive. Thus, some humans are born with certain genetic traits that make them psychologically unstable and impulsive.
So many question still remain on how effective both deterrence really are. General and Specific deterrence have good and bad effects on citizens. It prevents crime and some cases and fuels the rage in some. General deterrence focuses on preventing the crime before it happens. The thought of spending life in prison for committing a murder is very scary to me.