Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The new testament in crime and punishment
Ethics in capital punishment
Arguments supporting the Death Penalty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The new testament in crime and punishment
People often say that using the death penalty is like saying man is god, because we forcibly remove someone else fate from god’s hands. Capital Punishment is a weapon against crime. However, being the mortal creatures that we are, we praise for good deeds and punish for bad ones. Mathew 5:30 states, “You have heard that it has been said, eye for eye and tooth for a tooth.” This means that the punishment should always fit the crime. The person should have a punished that is equally cruel as the crime that has been committed. People do not agree that the punishment that the offender is receiving will bring back the dead or even ease the pain of their loved ones feel. For the sake of please society’s need for revenge, payback is justified by the punishing of the criminal that causes the criminal to suffer to the same level that their victims did. Statistics show that capital punishment does deter crime. Though, the retribution will never take the brutal behavior of the offender, it does serve for pleasing society’s need for restoring moral order, as retaliation would be required if punishment was not executed. It is morally the right thing to do. Though, the cost can be high, but with the right method, we can ensure fear in the public for committing such atrocious crime.
Deterrence is a rational technique of disappointing individuals from committing crimes by frightening possible criminals throughout the existence that there would be strict penalties for their criminal engagements, such as being captive. People can be reasonable, and it's simply wise to accept that individuals would reevaluate the temptations of illegal activity if the results and cruelty of the punishment would be predictable. The developing of Deterrence was the product of vengeance and the cruelty of the sentence when justice is ultimately served. Deterrence is successful in that it helps persuade a possible criminal to think the importance of crime that has been done is not worth the crime itself. The result of punishment, such as being in jail, helps serve as an example to other individuals, to break the law. Putting someone in jail is the government’s way of putting someone in time out, which is not always the best punishment for everyone. Punishment by death or mutilation of a criminal was set to be ultimately to be extreme or harsh. This was later replaced with more minor forms such as incarceration.
Incapacitation is a form of punishment that removes an offender from society. This model protects the public by getting the criminals off the street. Deterrence is implemented by punishing a person and using them as an example to deter others from criminal activity or through punishment that deters the individual from committing further acts. Rehabilitation is a prevention model that avoids future criminal activity of an offender by providing treatment and teaching them how to correct their path. Utilitarianism is consistent with preventative models of punishment and suggests that offenders act rationally and punishment that lowers crime will benefit society and outweighs individual harm.
Deterrence punishment is a threat to deter people from offending. Deterrence is often contrasted with retributivism, which holds that punishment is a necessary consequence of a crime and should be calculated based on the gravity of the wrong done.
Proponents of capital punishment believe that killing criminals is a moral and ethical way of punishing them. They feel there is justification in taking the life of a certain criminal, when in fact that justification is nothing more than revenge. They also feel that the death penalty deters crime, although there have been no conclusive studies confirming that viewpoint (Bedau).
Dosteovsky's novel Crime and Punishment depicts the Biblical account of Jesus' path to crucifixion burdened with a wooden cross through the character of Raskolnikov. After committing a cold-blooded murder he experiences mental anguish, and in a defeated state, confesses, and accepts the consequences of his crime.
There is an ongoing debate on the effectiveness of the deterrence doctrine. The deterrence doctrine is dated back to its origins in the 18th century, known to be the Age of Enlightenment. During the 1700s to 1800s, the Classical School of Criminology became the focal point as it commenced to force attention on the “cruel” justice system. The two most influential scholars who have elaborated along the idea of deterrence are Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Beccaria, known as the father of classical criminology, believed that people are “being motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and trying to avoid being in pain” (Owen et al., 2012, p. 132). The classical criminology is primarily founded on the notion of liberal volition. That is to say that
Eliminating the death penalty as a method of punishment will only allow criminals to wreak havoc and chaotic in our community without the fear of death. When a person commits a crime, they are disrupting the order in the community. Justice help restore the disruption of that order. The Death penalty restore social order and give the states authority to maximized retribution for the victims. When the state does not have the authority to maximum retribution, the public may put the law in their own hands. Although, execution may be cruel and inhumane, it is nothing compared to the fate of many victims in the hand of the murderers. The purpose of the death penalty is to provide retribution for the victims and their families. However, retribution is not revenge. “Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime” (Pojman, 2004).
The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. According to Hugo A. Bedau, the writer of “The Death Penalty in America”, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The death penalty has been used since ancient times for a variety of offenses. The Bible says that death should be done to anyone who commits murder, larceny, rapes, and burglary. It appears that public debate on the death penalty has changed over the years and is still changing, but there are still some out there who are for the death penalty and will continue to believe that it’s a good punishment. I always hear a lot of people say “an eye for an eye.” Most people feel strongly that if a criminal took the life of another, their’s should be taken away as well, and I don’t see how the death penalty could deter anyone from committing crimes if your going to do the crime then at that moment your not thinking about being on death role. I don’t think they should be put to death they should just sit in a cell for the rest of their life and think about how they destroy other families. A change in views and attitudes about the death penalty are likely attributed to results from social science research. The changes suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment in America (Radelet and Borg, 2000).
Deterrence – is connected to punishment where it is a way to let a person who has committed a crime know and to let the rest of society or those looking to commit a crime know it will not be tolerated or accepted and there is the possibility of some form of punishment. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013) If a person or society sees what can happen if they commit a crime by seeing what happens to others then they are more likely to obey the laws and live an honest lifestyle.
While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that capital punishment is being used for vengeance or as a deterrent. Capital punishment has been used worldwide, not only by the governments to instill fear, but to show that there are repercussions to ones actions. From the time we are born, we are taught to learn the difference between right and wrong. It is ingrained in our brains, what happens to people that do bad things? Capital punishment is renowned for being the worst thing that could be brought amongst ones life.
The death penalty or some prefer to call it capital punishment has been around since 1608. During the foundation of our country there were twelve death – eligible crimes of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and they were as follows: idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, murder, manslaughter, poisoning, bestiality, sodomy, adultery, man stealing , false witness in capital cases and conspiracy & rebellion. While some are absolutely for it and some are absolutely against it there is one factor that comes into play on both sides of the argument and that factor is religion. Many people will state that there is or should be a line between church and state however religion has and will always play a major role in ones conceptual thinking as to what is right and as to what is wrong what is moral and what is immoral. Despite the fact that people would rather think or rationalize without involving religion is nearly impossible. “By virtually any definition, religion involves a central concern with making sense of life and death. The American legal system, rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics, routinely confronts issues that test our basic assumptions about the meaning and sanctity of life and about the role of the State in shaping and sustaining such meanings” (Young,1992).
Deterrence theory of crime is a method in which punishment is used to dissuade people from committing crimes. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence is punishment to an individual to stop the society as a whole from committing crimes. In other word, it is using the punishment as an example to “scare” society from precipitating in criminal acts. Under general deterrence, publicity is a major part of deterrence. Crime and their punishments being showing in the media or being told person to person can be used to deter crime. Specific deterrence is punishment to the individual to stop that individual from committing other crimes in the future. This type of deterrence is used to teach the individual a lesson whatever action that participated in. Specific deterrence is founded on a principle called hedonistic calculus meaning, “an assumption that human nature leads people to pursue pleasure and avoid pain” (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2010, p 155).
Deterrence suggests that people are “deterred” from a crime by the threat of punishment. In other words, people won’t commit a crime if the ramifications that were to follow are so severe. Deterrence comes in two flavors, specific and general. Specific deterrence refers to the “threat of punishment” being directly aimed towards a particular individual who has already committed the crime through actually experiencing the punishment first hand. An example of this may be, being convicted of a crime and as a result being sentenced to so many years in jail or prison. However, in order for it to be successful, the “previously ...
Capital punishment goes against almost every religion. Isolated passages of religious scripture have been quoted in support of the death penalty, almost all religious groups in the United States regard executions as immoral. There is no credible evidence that capital punishment deters crime from the streets in America. Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime anymore than long prison sentences. Moreover, states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. Executions are carried out at staggering cost to taxpayer.The funds spent for execution should be used to target the issue of killing and find solutions to help communities unite to demonstrate a more peaceful environment. Recent CNN reported how studies done have found that the death penalty criminal litigation, costs taxpayers far more than seeking life without parole. (CNN, 2015) The states spends millions of dollars to put away death row inmates when the funds could be used to help channel society in tune with how to become more positive and getting help to those who need
Deterrence means to punish somebody as an example and to create fear in other people for the punishment. Death penalty is one of those extreme punishments that would create fear in the mind of any sane person. Ernest van den Haag, in his article "On Deterrence and the Death Penalty" mentions, "One abstains from dangerous acts because of vague, inchoate, habitual and, above all, preconscious fears" (193). Everybody fears death, even animals. Most criminals would think twice if they knew their own lives were at stake. Although there is no statistical evidence that death penalty deters crime, but we have to agree that most of us fear death. Suppose there is no death penalty in a state and life imprisonment without parole is the maximum punishment. What is stopping a prisoner who is facing a life imprisonment without parole to commit another murder in the prison? According to Paul Van Slambrouck, " Assaults in prisons all over US, both against fellow inmates and against staff, have more than doubled in the past decade, according to statistics gathered by the Criminal Justice Institute in Middletown, Connecticut" (Christian Science Monitor, Internet).
Though the death penalty is considered barbaric, it is not. With those who have ones that have died viciously to the ones who died young there is such a thing as karma. The death penalty allows those people who committed the crime to be punished equally. Therefore, I agree with the reason for having the death penalty. It is only fair that the criminal be punished for his wrong doings. The bible does say, “An eye for an eye.” When there is equal punishment and safety it makes people worry less. It allows them to live out their lives in peace, and to not look back on something bad that has happened to them.