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. The actions of certain criminals is the main reason why we need the death penalty.
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?
Putting them to death prevents the risk of prison attacks along with prison escapes. 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.
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. Modern day death penalty is necessary in some cases such as murder and rape.
On the other hand, people in disagreement argue that no execution can be deemed “humane”. 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.
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.
"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
This is one of the basis of society and it always do the most of its efforts to apply it in the society. When a murder kills someone it is duty of the society to punish murder. When someone is killed, victim’s family suffer and nothing can heal those even punishment of murder by capital punishment or by vengeance. However, it can be considered from another side. If convicted person to execution was innocent and capital punishment apply for he or she, where is the justice?
Reputation effects Parris because, he doesn 't want to go against the bible and be accused of working with the devil. Lasly a good name affects Judge Danforth 's decisions because he sees that later he has killed innocent people, but does not want to come forward because he 's killed to many innocents and people will look at him different. John Proctor is a model citizen. A Lot of people have
Will you stand with us or against us? I do not support the death penalty for some couple of reasons. First I do not think that a human being should be able to judge a person on their crime, a person should be jailed as a punishment. If we as human decide whether a person lives or dies from a bad doing, then we are as guilty as them and are doing the same thing as them by killing them. So as a result, I in my opinion of this subject do not believe