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.
"Moral desert" is just a philosophical notion that a person deserves something based on his or her actions, and it is not cleared up by equality retributivism because equality retributivism calls for us to "behave barbarically to those who are guilty of barbaric crimes" (Nathanson). Another example of this is imagine a rapist. It would be barbaric and morally unacceptable to rape the rapist. Even though it may seem that those who kill should be killed themselves, it really isn't moral and is not universally
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.
Throughout its history, the United States judicial system has dealt with an abundance of cases relating to capital punishment. The topic has sparked much debate on whether or not the death penalty constitutes as cruel and unusual punishment. Much like the political world we live in, people have their own opinions on whether this punishment is humane. Many, in support of the death penalty see it as an opportunity to rid the country free of the worst criminals to ultimately achieve a much safer society. On the other hand, people in disagreement argue that no execution can be deemed “humane”.
This law is given evenly because as long as the evidence stands to prove that you’re guilty, no matter the race, ethnicity, or age. Most people feel that no one should be put to death because of the crime committed but they shouldn’t have any chance of parole. Others feel that the death penalty is the only justifiable thing in this case. In my opinion, the Hammurabi code was needed during that time period just to control a large amount of people but I just can’t see any nation doing this in modern day.
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.
In most cases when a person commits a major crime they will get the same or close to the same sentence as someone that did the same thing but, in other cases the defendant will be judged by their skin color rather than the extent of their crime. That is why the death penalty violates the 14th amendment because when stuff like that happens and the defendant gets a death sentence there is no equal protection of the law. Lastly the death penalty
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.
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?
Even though it is true that taking the life of another is not right, it is even truer that the punishment should fit the crime. The death penalty is an exercise of justice that promotes retribution for crime and moral punishment for those who choose to take human life. Also, it prevents society 's worse offenders from re-offending, and it provides justice for the victims whose lives were cut short without a second thought. To better understand why capital punishment is a justifiable act, Kant 's theory gives a clear and logical understanding of the eye for an eye approach. Additionally the utilitarian view also explains why capital punishment is justifiable in regards to comfort for the victim 's family and prevention of re-offending.
“Many that live deserve death and many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment” – J.R.R Tolkien. Capital punishment has been around for many centuries but has been suppressed in several countries as punishment was thought to be medieval and barbaric. I strongly disagree with the statement ‘capital punishment should be reinstated’.
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
Ever since the outset of the American Constitution, capital punishment has existed as a crime sentence in the United States. However, in recent decades, this topic has become highly controversial, as many states have dictated against the death penalty. Although states with this position on capital punishment are increasing, some states, such as Texas, have continued to edict this practice in their provinces. In the State of Texas, the sentence to death upon a person should not be permitted due to the fact it can wrongly convict a person, its court trial is highly expensive, and it brings forth an unjust treatment.
There are a lot of things going on in the world about abortion, whether it should be allowed or not, but how about the death penalty. One of the things that Nebraskans need to beware of is the decision that needs to be made; Should Nebraska have the Death Penalty. People have every different opinions or beliefs on this situation. My opinion is my belief. I am a proud Catholic and I am not ashamed to admit that my opinion has to do with what the Catholic Church teaches.