What Does An “Eye for an Eye” Really Mean? When you hear the phrase, “An eye for an eye” it usually is associated with the Death Penalty, especially when used while discussing a killer. What this is suggesting is if someone takes another’s life, the killer should lose his life as well. But is this really the full meaning behind this phrase? What exactly does the phrase, “Eye for an eye” really mean then?
Should Death Penalty be abolished? Over decades people have been arguing about whether the death penalty should be abolished or not if death is morally right or cruel and unusual penalty. Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for crime. Is it right to see people dying even though it’s under the act of government punishment? The cost of the death penalty is ridiculous.
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. Similar situations could be prevented by only placing a person on death row if there exists irrefutable, incriminating evidence, such as DNA evidence or camera footage. The use of DNA analysis in modern day death penalty cases has almost nullified the chance that an innocent person is put on death row, as such evidence or the lack thereof guards an innocent defendant against perjury (Bradbury, "The Death Penalty Affirms the Sanctity of Life"). The tragic story of McMillan also indicates the biased perception of the local courts that condemned him; he had already been framed as a vicious murderer by the media and, at that time, was predisposed to a conviction of capital punishment simply by being a black man in Alabama. However, today’s review of capital punishment cases by both state and federal courts makes such a bias highly unlikely.
Depending on the outcome of the procedures, the population of a country are encouraged to participate is either criminal or noncriminal activities depending on the outcome of these trials. In this case, Timothy and his friends were taken away from the community for the safety and preference f the many after breaking the laws of the United States. Moreover, the theory of criminal justice states that sinners and lawbreakers should be punished according to which was the case of the Oklahoma bombing. After breaking capital offense of first-degree murder, Timothy was punished by being sentenced to death. His friends Michael and Terry were sentenced to imprisonment after withholding information which would have saved the lives of the deceased.
There are numerous ways to punish people who are a threat to society without executing them. No matter which way the death penalty is carried out, be it lethal injection, lethal gas, electrocution, hanging, or firing squad, the executioner is always implicated. Bryan Stevenson, a social justice activist, questions, “If it’s not right to torture someone for torture, abuse someone for abuse, rape someone for rape, then how can we think we can kill someone for killing?” (“Delaney” 1). Although executioners are permitted to kill, they are still killing another human being. They will have to live with the mental fact that they took away another person's life, when it is not necessary.
Capital punishment, also known as death penalty, is an act of execution of an offender that is sentenced to death after they were convicted by a court of law of a criminal offence (Hood). In American society, the threat of capital punishment stands as the ultimate sentence for a criminal. The moral complications of the taking another life, whether it is by murder or as legally accepted punishment, remains an unresolved conflict between Americans. Death penalty has always been and continues to be a very controversial issue. Many people believe that death penalty is not a justifiable approach for murderers, but does not justice mandate that criminals receive what they deserve?
The topic is debated whether or not the Capital Punishment should be legal. The government is already involved in the lives of those who commit crimes, but the idea of it taking away someone’s life creates an uneasy thought. Some people believe that execution is wrong, inhumane and should be abolished while others believe that it projects positive impacts and
It has given more of a story to show and probably has changed many people’s mind about it. The moral capability of it is extremely important and I understand that but if you brutally murder two kids why would you only be held in prison for life. I think that if there is a death row case it should be someone with a good lawyer, not someone with no experience and will lose the case. They deserve a higher court system rather than a small town court. They deserve a judge case because we went over the jury bias of people and how white males are preferred over black females.
Even his family did not fight the punishment he was sentenced and said they would, “struggle as long as we live why he committed this horrible attack, which caused so much pain to so many good people” (Siegel). The only just punishment for Roof is death, as long as he is alive he will think he has done the right thing by killing those people. If the trial would have taken a turn where Roof was given to privilege to go back into society there would be no doubt he would execute the same crime, and potentially on a larger scale. Capital punishment saves other innocent lives from people such as Dylann Roof
By a young age many were taught that killing was very bad, and that the killing of the innocent is worst, but other than that this lesson can not be taught. However, the book To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee captures readers into this 1930’s town that moves you to realize how harsh racism was and how if affects the lives of many innocent people. Indeed, to kill a mockingbird is a