Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of the death penalty on society
Is the death penalty effective or not
Negative effect of capital punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of the death penalty on society
Capital Punishment
In my opinion capital punishment is wrong. The death penalty is the center of much debate in society. This is due, in part, to the fact that people see only the act of killing a criminal, and not the social effects the death penalty has on society as a whole. Upon reading about the death penalty, it was found to be an unethical practice. It promotes a violent and inhumane society in which killing is considered okay. Since there are alternatives, the death penalty should be abolished. Some people believe capital punishment to be cruel and unusual. Others believe that a person who kills, should themselves be killed. This statement alone raises the question, "How should they be killed?" The question that should really be asked is, "Should we kill at all?" Would it be morally correct to kill someone just because they have killed someone else?
In 1972, capital punishment (in any form) was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision was reversed in 1976, when new methods of execution were introduced. These new methods included death by lethal injection. Does this mean that it is okay to kill as long as we use a method that is not considered cruel or unusual by society? The death penalty is considered the harshest form of punishment enforced today. Once a jury has convicted a criminal, they go to the second part of the trial, the punishment phase. If the jury recommends the death penalty and the judge agrees that this punishment is deserving of the crime, the criminal will face some form of execution. Contrary to popular belief, the electric chair is not the most common way of executing somebody. Death by lethal injection accounts for the majority of the executions toda...
... middle of paper ...
...he right person is being sentenced to their death, unless a confession is presented. Even if a confession is presented, it is not morally right to kill another person because they have once killed. This is not to say that I am totally against killing in society. If one must kill another person in order to protect him/herself, then I feel that killing in self-defense is justified. Killing a criminal because someone decided that they "deserve to die" is not justified. If a criminal is convicted of murder (and would normally be sentenced to death), I believe that they should be locked up in prison for the rest of their natural life. Killing a criminal will only create more violence in
society. With more violence comes more crime, which leads to more criminal convictions, and the whole process repeats itself. The death penalty is unethical and should be abolished.
Many positions can be defended when debating the issue of capital punishment. In Jonathan Glover's essay "Executions," he maintains that there are three views that a person may have in regard to capital punishment: the retributivist, the absolutist, and the utilitarian. Although Glover recognizes that both statistical and intuitive evidence cannot validate the benefits of capital punishment, he can be considered a utilitarian because he believes that social usefulness is the only way to justify it. Martin Perlmutter on the other hand, maintains the retributivist view of capital punishment, which states that a murderer deserves to be punished because of a conscious decision to break the law with knowledge of the consequences. He even goes as far to claim that just as a winner of a contest has a right to a prize, a murderer has a right to be executed. Despite the fact that retributivism is not a position that I maintain, I agree with Perlmutter in his claim that social utility cannot be used to settle the debate about capital punishment. At the same time, I do not believe that retributivism justifies the death penalty either.
Since 1967, a total of 1392 executions have occurred in the United States ("Executions by Year"). What a shocking amount! This staggering number creates questioning on the topic of capital punishment. Is the death penalty really constitutional? Research and study over the topic leads to the conclusion that capital punishment should not be instituted in the United States for various reasons. The death penalty is immoral, unconstitutional, and inaccurate due to human errors.
Since the beginning of modern law, capital punishment has been present in our world. Ranging from the guillotine to lethal injection, over time people have discovered more “humane” ways to execute a convicted criminal. Opinions on the subject may vary depending on certain situations, such as the victim being a family member or close friend. Although there are solid pro-arguments for the death penalty I believe there is enough evidence that implies it should not be legal in any way, shape or form.
The death penalty is legal in thirty-one states and illegal in nineteen states. There are at least forty-one federal capital crimes in the United States that can be considered or guaranteed with the death penalty. The death penalty should be abolished because it is unlawful to society, humanity, and civilization as a whole. It costs far more to execute a person rather than to keep them in prison for the rest of his or her life. Logically speaking, the death penalty is an illicit and wrongful punishment no matter what the crime. The emotion and anger toward the criminals that commit horrible crimes can overcome what is actually right for society. There are many more opposing factors towards the death penalty than there are supporting ones. Capital punishment is nefarious to say the least and there are other consequences and actions that can be substituted rather than directly executing a person for their actions.
When taking account into all the facts it is evident that the death penalty is wrong. The death penalty is costly and doesn’t necessarily reduce crime. Everybody has the right to choose their destiny so why should someone else decide theirs?
Murder, a common occurrence in American society, is thought of as a horrible, reprehensible atrocity. Why then, is it thought of differently when the state government arranges and executes a human being, the very definition of premeditated murder? Capital punishment has been reviewed and studied for many years, exposing several inequities and weaknesses, showing the need for the death penalty to be abolished.
People often get caught up in the idea of capital punishment and what it means to others. For some individuals, it is a good feeling to see others suffer for their crimes. Meanwhile, others view the consequences as quite horrendous. I believe if an individual commits a serious crime, he or she should prepare to suffer the consequences. So strong is the desire to make others suffer for their crimes, we loose sight of what is right and wrong.
I believe that capital punishment is necessary to ensure justice. Certain criminals commit crimes so great that they warrant death. The emotional tolls of the people around the victim can be alleviated by the death of the perpetrator. Prisons are inherently difficult to run, and capital punishment reduces the efforts that must be expended to successfully manage a prison. Capital punishment reduces crime in the way that it offers an incentive great enough to prevent offenses such as mass murder. Capital punishment holds much support in its favor, and I believe that it should remain.
It is unnerving to think that everyday some of the most unspeakable murders and killings take place just under the noses of the authorities and normal people. The killers responsible for these crimes are threats to society and deserve capital punishment. The death penalty is an acceptable and fair method of punishment because it serves justice, provides victim’s families with closure, and increases safety.
The death penalty has been around since the time of Jesus Christ. Executions have been recorded from the 1600s to present times. From about 1620, the executions by year increased in the US. It has been a steady increase up until the 1930s; later the death penalty dropped to zero in the 1970s and then again rose steadily. US citizens said that the death penalty was unconstitutional because it was believed that it was "cruel and unusual" punishment (Amnesty International). In the 1970s, the executions by year dropped between zero and one then started to rise again in the 1980s. In the year 2000, there were nearly one hundred executions in the US (News Batch). On June 29, 1972, the death penalty was suspended because the existing laws were no longer convincing. However, four years after this occurred, several cases came about in Georgia, Florida, and Texas where lawyers wanted the death penalty. This set new laws in these states and later the Supreme Court decided that the death penalty was constitutional under the Eighth Amendment (Amnesty International).
The death penalty ?cruel and unusual punishment.? At one time in history around six hundred people were executed, and in those six-hundred eighty of them were innocent but still executed (Thomas 2). Many people say that the death penalty is lawful. They think that if the punishment is carried out by the government and not by one person it is fine, and it is not cruel and unusual punishment (Carmical 2). Yes, the men who constructed the constitution supported the death penalty, but times have changed and so has the constitution. The constitution should abolish the death penalty (Carmical 5).
The death penalty has been around for centuries. It dates back to when Hammurabi had his laws codified; it was “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Capital punishment in America started when spies were caught, put on trial and hung. In the past and still today people argue that, the death penalty is cruel, unusual punishment and should be illegal. Yet many people argue that it is in fact justifiable and it is not cruel and unusual. Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual; the death penalty is fair and there is evidence that the death penalty deters crime.
The death penalty; is it ok for the deserving criminal or should it be outlawed completely? In today’s society, the view of capital punishment varies from country to country; where countries in the commonwealth are against it while in the USA and some Southern Asian countries it is still used to this day. There are many for and against arguments for this topic, which includes the person has done the crime to deserve it, it will stop sick people form re entering the community, all life is sacred in the eyes of the church and it doesn’t allow the criminal to redeem and rehabilitate themselves in the prison system.
Some even claim that it is cruel and unusual punishment. I would like to shed light on the issue and inform everyone as to why we should keep the death penalty and possibly even use it more than we do now. First of all, it is hard for anyone to argue that we already use the death penalty too much because facts say that we hardly use it at all. Since 1967, there has been one execution for every 1,600 murders. There have been approximately 560,000 murders and 358 executions between 1967 and 1996(UCR and BJS).
I think capital punishment is wrong. However, on the other-hand some people think it’s a right choice. I think it is wrong because everyone deserves to be forgiven no matter how bad their mistake was, as long as they’ve been punished and proven that they think their action was wrong and that they want to move forward and start again, then I think they should have the right to do so.