The United States remains in the minority of nations in the world that still uses death as penalty for certain crimes. Capital punishment is seen by many as barbaric and against American values, while others see it as a very important tool in fighting violent pre-meditated murder. One of the supporters of the Death penalty was a man named Walter Berns (a professor of American constitutional law and political philosophy.) He wrote clearly about his view on the death penalty in his Crime and Delinquency article, “Defending the Death Penalty.” He argued that the “Opposition to capital punishment is a modern phenomenon, a product of modern sentiment and modern thought” (p. 504) and with the help of historical references and logical reasoning throughout …show more content…
We still have: men and women shooting each other over land disputes (Turf wars), people almost killing each other over being cut off in traffic, and a society that would rather videotape a situation rather than help one another out. I am not convinced that we as a society have developed enough that we are, “more concerned with human rights than were the founders of the school of human rights…”(p. 504). Despite other arguments against the death penalty, I believe that capital punishment is a morally acceptable punishment for murder. The most fundamental principle of Justice is that punishment should be proportionate to the crime, and to not execute an individual for murder goes against the proportionality aspect of the eighth amendment. Simply, sentencing someone to jail is not equivalent to the taking of someone’s life. Why give that individual who has committed the atrocity, the freedom of life when they have taken that away from …show more content…
Berns said in his article was how he described punishment as a, “reward to those who have not committed a crime and by rewarding praise to the law-abiding in turn teaches law-abidingness”(p. 508). I read this section over numerous times to grasp exactly what he was getting at. He argued that anger was a force to be condemned and that law was the tool to control anger. I never thought of it that way. I agree that in the heat of passion, anger can be destructive, manipulating, and dangerous. Which could lead to actions that might be regretful. But what confuses me, is how exactly punishment is seen as a reward. I wouldn’t call punishment a reward but more so as a measure to deter further crime. My guess is that Dr. Berns viewed punishment as a theoretical boundary set by law where individuals within the boundaries aren’t punished so therefore ultimately praised for their cooperation. Dr. Audrey L. Anton in her book called, “Moral Responsibility and Desert of Praise and Blame” describes the difference between praise for being and praise for doing (p. 80) which helped ease my confusion. In which she underlines: morality, reasoning of decision making, and how blame and praise ultimately formulates right from wrong. Dr. Anton describes praise and blame as a societal tool which separates, good from bad. Which makes sense, if a crime is committed then blame is administered to whoever committed the offense, separating those who have not
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Oshinsky did a remarkable job explaining the history of the death penalty in a clear and concise way. While the text was fairly short, he effectively provided his readers with well documented and relevant information on how controversial the death penalty has been throughout the past few centuries. He undertook an exceptionally important issue that many Americans do not know much about, or may have conflicting feelings
The 8th Amendment You and your friends are trick or treating on Halloween. One friend has the idea to go decorate your neighbor's house with toilet paper. Halfway through you're decorating a police car pulls up on the street. The police officer sentences you and your friends to life in prison.
Gregg v. Georgia: Punishable by Death Hunter Alto AP Government-3AB 1-7-18 Many Americans debate over the use of the death penalty as a capital punishment. Some argue that it is inhumane to kill somebody or the form in which they use to kill somebody can be botched making it extremely painful. While others will argue that the death penalty is an adequate punishment for those who have committed a serious crime. As Americans we have many liberties and freedoms which protect us from the government and other people being unusually cruel to us when giving someone a penance for a crime they have committed. This freedom is established in the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which says “Excessive bail shall not be required,
The topic of capital punishment presents a test of values. The arguments in support of and opposition to the death penalty are complex. In the end, this is a question of an individual’s values and morals. The topic requires careful thought to reach a reasoned position. Both sides of the argument are defensible.
In his essay, Lewis makes a lot of good points to the area of retribution vs. rehabilitation. He demonstrates that the two Utilitarian questions about punishment “whether it deters and whether it cures” end up disregarding justice altogether.
Annotated Bibliography Draft Student name : Haider Zafaryab Student number: 2360526 Thesis Statement : Capital Punishment is a very controversial topic around the globe. I believe that it does more harm than good and breeds violence in society. Source 1: Radelet, M. L., & Akers, R. L. (1996).
Capital punishment has long been a heavily debated issue. In his article, “The Rescue Defence of Capital Punishment,” author Steve Aspenson make a moral argument in favor of capital punishment on the grounds that that is the only way to bring about justice and “rescue” murder victims. Aspenson argues as follows: 1. We have a general, prima facie duty to rescue victims from increasing harm. 2.
Should America continue to allow the death penalty? This essay will tell you why America should not be continue the death penalty. For starters, the death penalty is punishment by death; usually resulting after a crime that America calls capital crimes or capital offences. There are many of reasons why the death penalty should not be carried out in America or anywhere “Application of the death penalty tends to be arbitrary and capricious; for similar crimes, some are sentenced to death while others are not.”
In recent years, anti-death penalty propagandists have succeeded in stoking the fear that capital punishment is being carelessly meted out. Ironically, Of the 875 prisoners executed in the United States in modern times, not one has been retroactively proved innocent. The benefits of a legal system in which judges and juries have the option of sentencing the cruelest or coldest murderers to death far outweigh the potential risk of executing an innocent person. First and foremost, the death penalty makes it possible for justice to be done to those who commit the worst of all crimes. The execution of a murderer sends a powerful moral message: that the innocent life he took was so precious, and the crime he committed so horrific, that he forfeits
In his essay, "The Death Penalty," David Bruck hypothesizes that the American people will eventually find that the death penalty is not the best way to punish a convicted murderer. Bruck develops this hypothesis by countering all pro-death penalty arguments with previous cases and specific statistics that apply to the argument. David Bruck's purpose is to persuade the readers to think for themselves on the topic and use what they know as a basis. Bruck uses an educated tone to establish credibility with the reader. He takes apart the views of the local mayor in an attempt to prove anyone wrong who might disagree.
In this essay, I will discuss whether the claim that retributivists are making are right by justifying whether their assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded. A person who has committed a crime must be punished. Punishment makes sure that the offender pays their debt to the society or state. Retributivism justifies that punishment is payback for crime and its main goal is to give the offender their just deserts.
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
This is what makes us different from “the brute creation.” I disagree with this, because punishments are needed for people who do wrong things. Punishment, while a form of pain, shows other people the consequence of doing something wrong. In the next point that Bentham makes, he also says this is not a reason to be lenient to wrong doers.
Fines are a historic type of monetary penalty which have remained incredibly popular. Outside of the United States, fines make up about 70 % of all punishments in the lower courts. The fine can be seen as a modest penalty, and appropriate, in my opinion, only if the offence was minor. Bentham sees monetary penalties as ‘ideal’. This I argue is incorrect.
The attractiveness of this theory is primarily based on the ethical code that Hampton subscribes to, which is that pain-inflicted punishments should not be condoned when it comes to disciplining wrongdoers. Rather, constructive analysis done pertaining to why certain actions are morally wrong in society would be intellectually stimulating and productive for both the wrongdoers and the public, all while avoiding the infliction of physical pain. Compared to the retributivist argument, which circulates around the idea that the purpose of punishment is to make wrongdoers pay for their misdeeds, and that they should be treated the way that they have treated others, the MET is a more humane way to treat wrongdoers, and in the long run, would perhaps help them emerge from confinement as better citizens within society, rather than as potential repeat offenders. Therefore, the appeal of the MET stems from the positive implications of treating wrongdoers with respect and dignity, all while teaching them why their actions were wrong while simultaneously instilling positive and moral values in their psyche before allowing them to re-enter