In this paper I will argue for the moral permissibility of the death penalty and I am fairly confident that when the case for capital punishment is made properly, its appeal to logic and morality is compelling. The practice of the death penalty is no longer as wide-spread as it used to be throughout the world; in fact, though the death penalty was nearly universal in past societies, only 71 countries world-wide still officially permit the death penalty (www.infoplease.com); the U.S. being among them. Since colonial times, executions have taken place in America, making them a part of its history and tradition. Given the pervasiveness of the death penalty in the past, why do so few countries use the death penalty, and why are there American states that no longer sanction its use? Is there a moral wrong involved in the taking of a criminal’s life? Of course the usual arguments will be brought up, but beyond the primary discourse most people do not go deeper than their “gut feeling” or personal convictions. When you hear about how a family was ruthlessly slaughtered by a psychopathic serial killer most minds instantly feel that this man should be punished, but to what extent? Would it be just to put this person to death?
First, let us get an understanding of what crime really is, as well as the right to punish. A crime as defined by Immanuel Kant is “a violation of social laws” meaning a violation that would be committed against a society. (www.philosophos.com) In order for a society to be functional it must have laws and regulations regarding these violations and any disobedience with the laws would be subject to punishment. So who can administer these punishments and decide to what degree it will punish? Kant tells us t...
... middle of paper ...
...riving a society of justice, and showing compassion to those who commit one of the greatest evils a man can commit, expresses cruelty to the society, especially toward those loved ones of the victim who yearn for justice.
Works Cited
Avaliani, Archil. "www.philosophos.com." 28 Jan. 2010. .
Dart, Andrew. "Capital Punishment as an Effective Deterrent." www.akdart.com. 28 Nov. 2010. .
“The Death Penalty Worlwide.” Infoplease.
©2000-2007 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease.com. 28 Nov. 2010
Messerli, Joe. "The Death Penalty: Pros and Cons." www.balancedpolitics.org. 28 Jan. 2010. .
Prager, Dennis. Think a Second Time. New York: HarperCollins Publisher, Inc., 1995.
In “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman he offers a detailed explanation of many different ways to define justice and allows the reader to fully comprehend the meaning of it. Before he even began explaining justice he gave his own experience with crime as way to convey to the reader how his rights had been violated and he had been filled with anger at the criminals instead of the justice that failed him. This first hand encounter with crime allowed Reiman to prove to readers that justice is what is what protects us and it is the criminals who are the problem. To see that even a man who had thought and written about nothing but crime for thirty-five years could still become
Capital punishment results in the victims family gaining a greater sense of security, making sure the criminal is able to be punished to the highest degree for his crime, and honoring retribution. The issue of capital punishment has created a division
There are over sixty offenses in the United States of America that can be punishable by receiving the death penalty (What is..., 1). However, many individuals believe that the death penalty is an inadequate source of punishment for any crime no matter how severe it is. The fact remains, however, that the death penalty is one of the most ideal forms of punishment. There are other individuals who agree with the idea that capital punishment is the best form of punishment. In fact, some of these individuals believe that this should be the only form of punishment.
It's dark and cold, the fortress-like building has cinderblock walls, and death lurks around the perimeter. A man will die tonight. Under the blue sky, small black birds gather outside the fence that surrounds the building to flaunt their freedom. There is a gothic feel to the scene, as though you have stepped into a horror movie.
Since the year, 1976 one thousand- three hundred and ninety-two individuals have been sentenced to capital-punishment. The term capital punishment has been coined to kindly identify the death penalty or execution. The death penalty has remained a major controversy for quite some time. Today, one of the most debated issues within the criminal justice system is the issue of whether or not the death penalty should be seen as being an ethical procedure. Prior to the year 1972, it had been seen as being legal. In 1972, the Supreme Court evaluated the terms of the death penalty and ruled it as being unconstitutional (History of the Death Penalty). The right or execution violated citizens eighth and fourteenth amendment rights. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court contradicted themselves in 1976 and reinstated the death penalty. Today, it is up to the states discretion rather or not they are going to permit capital-punishment. Through this essay the reader will read the pros and cons of the death penalty and the writers standpoint in regards to the capital
The death penalty, ever since it was established, has created a huge controversy all throughout the world. Ever since the death penalty was created, there have been people who supported the death penalty and those who wanted to destroy it. When the death penalty was first created the methods that were used were gruesome and painful, it goes against the Eighth Amendment that was put in place many years later. The methods they used were focused on torturing the people and putting them through as much pain as possible. In today’s society the death penalty is quick and painless, it follows the Eighth Amendment. Still there are many people who are against capital punishment. The line of whether to kill a man or women for murder or to let him or her spend the rest one’s life in prison forever will never be drawn in a staight.
It is the firm belief and position here that committing such a crime as murder is punishable by death. Americans should take a position for anyone on death row, to be executed sooner rather than later.
The death penalty has been part of the American judicial system since the country’s founding [1]. Most people see the death penalty as the fairest way to punish those who have killed, because, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, “the instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man.” I do agree that the deliverance of justice is an important factor in any public policy. However, it is also important to consider the more pragmatic aspects, like the cost to the state. It is possible that the financial cost could be outweighed by the societal benefit. However, upon researching the death penalty, one would discover that the cost of capital punishment is unreasonably high, particularly in the state of California, especially when we consider how rarely the death sentence is actually implemented. In times like these, times of economic turmoil and scarce financial resources, the state cannot afford a system that is so expensive and also so rarely utilized. I believe that, in the state of California, the death penalty is overly expensive and so rarely implemented that it should be abolished.
Guernsey, J. B. (2010). Death penalty: fair solution or moral failure. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner Publishing Group, Inc. Retrieved February 8, 2011 from http://books.google.com/books?id=38slHSsFFrgC&pg=PA125&dq=death+penalty+in+other+countries&hl=en&ei=F6dQTZHLBsm_tgfD7rHBCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=death%20penalty%20in%20other%20countries&f=false
Crime is some action/omission that causes harm in a situation that the person/group responsible ‘ought’ to be held accountable and punished irrespective of what the law book of state say.
When someone is legally convicted of a capital crime, it is possible for their punishment to be execution. The Death Penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. Some believe the act of punishing a criminal by execution is completely inhumane, while others believe it is a necessary practice needed to keep our society safe. In this annotated bibliography, there are six articles that each argue on whether or not the death penalty should be illegalized. Some authors argue that the death penalty should be illegal because it does not act as a deterrent, and it negatively effects the victim’s families. Other scholar’s state that the death penalty should stay legalized because there is an overcrowding in prisons and it saves innocent’s lives. Whether or not the death penalty should be
Crimes are not ‘given’ or ‘natural’ categories to which societies simply respond. The composition of such categories change from various places and times, and is the output of social norms and conventions. Also, crime is not the prohibitions made for the purpose of rational social defence. Instead, Durkheim argues that crimes are those acts which seriously violate a society’s conscience collective. They are essentially violations of the fundamental moral code which society holds sacred, and they provoke punishment for this reason. It is because of these criminal acts which violate the sacred norms of the conscience collective, that they produce a punitive reaction. (Ibid)
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.