It’s immoral to be in favor of the death penalty. People who support it believe that by executing criminals well prevent them from murdering again, and they feel they deserve to feel the feeling of cruelty as they did to others. Citizens of the United States are fond to similar privileges and assurances. As Americans, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People believe that if a murder takes this rights from a person, why should they still be connected to society?
Capital punishment. The big debate on who gets to decide whether someone lives or dies? Pacifist would say that it’s unethical and inhumane and that it is highly ironic that you’re killing those who kill, just to get the point across not to kill. Realist, like me, however, would retort back that by not ridding ourselves of these kind of people, it would feel as if we were just letting them get away with what they’ve done, without them knowing that there are serious consequences to your actions.
Rainsford is a competitive hunter just like Zaroff so there is a possibility he killed Zaroff because he is stubborn and wanted to win, which would lead him to be guilty and have a more intense punishment. In the end I think even if it was for survival rainsford will have to serve some jail time for his actions. I believe Rainsford should serve some jail time because he did push Zaroff’s body off the window and let the dogs eat his flesh, pushing Zaroff’s body off was unnecessary but the actually murder has its own punishments. Do you think he should be in jail for murdering Zaroff even if it was for his own protection? , keep in mind that Rainsford would be guilty for many things he has done as
Movies alluding to death sentencings in kingdoms, where typically the subject gets their head taken off is what comes to most minds who aren’t educated on the topic. Although those receiving the death penalty may not have gotten their sentence by being humane, the state prides their practice in killing ethically and by choice. Recently, Nebraska voters restored capital punishment in the state. The most substantial main reasoning for the use of judicial murder practices include morality, cost and closure. The government aside from compassion for those effected by the convict, supports the penalty because of “cost of death vs. life in prison” according to Robert Evnen, Nebraskan for capital punishment attorney.
Additionally, these men may be let out on good behavior before their life sentence has been served and cause havoc in their cities once again. The death penalty can improve in its efficiency, its effectiveness and its certainty, but it is no doubt the best way to take care of the men and women who take the lives of innocent civilians in our country. The use of a life sentence simply does not do the job that the death penalty does. These men will have relationships in prison along with human interaction and other quality moments that they do not deserve. They should be taken off of this Earth just as they took their victims away from their families.
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.
Since Zaroff is hunting humans, one of them is most likely to die. Murder can not go unpunished. Rainsford would most likely have died if he didn’t kill Zaroff. Some may say that one should never kill no matter what. Well, if Rainsford himself never killed Zaroff, he would have died.
the Death penalty cannot be applied to both groups, for example, some who commits it to defend from yourself, do not deserve to receive capital punishment, however someone who has committed a serial murder. Definitely deserve to death penalty. We have a proverb in Dray that each tree has a couple of rotten fruit and for preventing from spoilage of other fruits they must be removed, society is the
A main argument for the opposition of the death penalty claim that there are alternatives which can offer the same punishment without an inhumane “execution” such as life in prison. However, supporters of the death penalty see life in prison as an extremely unfair punishment related to the acts brought forth by these criminals. Why should a serial killer who has been found guilty on 6 accounts of first degree murder be allowed to “live” the rest of his life, regardless of it behind bars? He shouldn’t, is the answer. Abolition supporters will continue to take shots at the ethics behind capital punishment,
The death penalty is a cruel and unjust method of serving justice, innocent defendants are often put on death row, and execution by lethal injection has the risk of going horribly wrong. With the rise of the population going against the death penalty, we should influence other states to have a death penalty free
By saying the individual on trial shall not live because they murdered another, this reflects back on the decision makers. It deems those making the decisions hypocrites. The court members are choosing whether one lives or dies, and if they choose the death option they are performing the exact crime the individual could be on trial for. Murder. The court’s final
Many, many animals are going endangered and even extinct because of human caused climate changing. One of those notable examples is the polar bears, which only have a population of 20,000-25,000. The reason polar bears are going extinct is because warmer temperatures in the north is causing the ice caps to melt more, and in the summer, polar bears use the ice caps to travel to get food after hibernating. But if the ice caps melt too much and break away, then polar bears
The most common argument people like to claim is the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. The article “The Death Penalty Is Not Cruel and Unusual Punishment” acknowledges this statement “How is executing Karla Faye Tucker by lethal injection any [more] cruel than the way she used a pick-ax to viciously butcher two people to death?” People deserve the death sentence for committing a hideous and unethical crime. The government shouldn’t allow a person like Karla Faye Tucker to live. The government needs to purify and purge the nation by allowing more death penalty.