Capital punishment is a form of punishment by which a convicted individual’s life is terminated and this essay shall conclude that this is not a form of punishment which a criminal could deserve in any circumstance. The essay begins by discussing extracts from the Bible and examines the contradictions of the Bible itself. This therefore leads to the conclusion that the circumstances in which capital punishment may be deserved is down to the individual’s interpretation rather than a set criteria in which capital punishment is the appropriate punishment. The essay then goes on to explore the argument of retribution and theories such as lex talionis which is the idea that the severity of the punishment should be proportional to the gravity …show more content…
Lex talionis is the law of retaliation and it states that the severity of punishment should be proportional to the gravity of the crime (Oxford Dictionaries, English, n.d.). This law supports the Bible’s quote from Exodus 23 regarding “eye for an eye” (Exodus 23) and therefore suggests that in the case of a murderer, capital punishment is the appropriate punishment to be used as the severity of the punishment is proportional to the gravity of the crime, in both cases a life is lost. Lex talionis is also supported by a real life example where in the 19th century, capital punishment was deemed as being not proportional to the crime of theft and so capital punishment ceased to be used as a punishment for those who had committed theft (Mill, p100). The issue with lex talionis being used as a support for capital punishment is that life imprisonment could also be deemed as a proportional punishment to the crime of murder. Life imprisonment removes an individual’s rights to a normal life in the same way that a murderer removed the victim’s right to life so the debate is whether life imprisonment imposes the same level of punishment as capital punishment. If an individual believes that both capital punishment and life imprisonment are proportional punishments for the crime then which should be used? Emile …show more content…
Derek Bentley is an example of this, he was executed in 1953 for murdering a police officer however after his execution it was discovered that Chris Craig was actually the shooter. Derek Bentley was pardoned and this is an example of a posthumous pardon however does this compensate for Bentley’s loss of life? Michael Davis argues that “capital punishment is no less revocable than any other kind of punishment” (Yost, 2011) and so would believe that the pardon does compensate for Bentley’s wrongful execution. If it could be proven that Bentley benefited posthumously from the pardon then it could be argued that capital punishment is an acceptable form of punishment in such a scenario as murder. However, the plausibility of posthumous harm is questionable as is shown by Matthew Parris who discusses the difference between a pardon and genuine forgiveness and the importance of this difference. He argues that “a pardon reflects on (and rehabilitates) the pardoned, connoting some vague sense of recompense because justice was not done” (Parris and Parris, n.d.). Therefore a pardon attempts to restore justice rather than recompense the individual who was wrongly punished and as a result of the punishment lost their life. As such, wrongful capital punishment cannot be revoked and so it
The les talionis approach to capital punishment should not be limited only murder just because “the uniqueness of the crime has to do with the uniqueness of the value which has been deliberately destroyed” (Primoratz 357.) To approach one crime and punishment with a retributive mindset clearly fails Kant’s decree that “an action is permissible if the maxim can be universalized” (Vaughn 122.) If the punishment for murder is death, then all other punishment for any other crime should resemble the
Capital punishment has been a hot topic debate the past years, especially now that it is slowly dying out throughout the states. In this paper I have brought out four people’s opinion on their views about capital punishment. With these people ideals, I wanted to bring forth a small sample of people’s ideals to leave the you, the reader, with some perspective on others
Above all else, capital punishment should be morally justified in extreme situations because it will have a deterrent effect. Many criminals seem to be threatened more by the thought of death rather than a long-term prison sentence. If a criminal is sentenced to twenty-five years in prison then he/she knows that all the necessities needed to survive for those twenty-five years, including food, water, shelter, and even a possible chance of release will be pro...
Capital punishment, as ordained by God, is the only way to reduce crime in a long-lasting form. Although there are many who would refute this claim, the Bible holds its ground when it comes to the issue of capital punishment. The Bible has stood for, and will continue to stand for, capital punishment. Since God was the one who first initiated capital punishment, we should look to His Word to find the origin of it. Capital punishment was instituted when God told Adam and Eve “...in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Genesis 9:6 also references capital punishment by stating, “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” Exodus 21:12 echoes this saying with, “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.” According to the Bible, if a man kills another man, he is to be immediately put to death. He is not to be allowed to talk his way out of it. The Bible is very clear that punishment for crime should be swift and sure.
When a defendant is convicted and sentenced to death, theoretically what follows is an execution. An execution doesn’t follow death sentences very swiftly, and in some cases at all for a variety of reasons. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that only 15% of people sentenced to death from 1973-2009 had been executed by the end of 2009. Of these cases, 46% ended in alternate ways (reversed convictions, commuted sentences, or the death of the inmate). Of the inmates sentenced to death during that period, 39% were still
Sometimes we can not always give what they deserve but, giving them less than what they deserve is unfair. The bible believes in an eye for an eye. Meaning you can kill someone who has killed. I believe in punishing murders and they should get nothing less than what they deserve, but an eye for an eye, to me, is not always the correct punishment. I am in favor of proportional retributivism because it allows flexibility within a range of murder cases. It would allow a more heinous murderer to receive the death penalty and a less severe murder criminal to receive life in prison without violating
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 capital punishment has been cited as a reasonable sentence by those who advocate for retribution. This is essentially when it comes to justice so that people take full responsibility for their individual actions. Studies have proved that the decision to take away life of a person because they committed a certain crime serves to perpetuate the crime in question. It also serves to enhance the progress of organized and violent crime. It has been noted that various flaws in the justice system has led to the wrong conviction of innocent people. On the other hand, the guilty have also been set free, and a plethora of several cases has come up when a critical look at the capital punishment has been undertaken. Killers hardly kill their victims deliberately, but they probably act on anger, passion, or impulsively. In this regard, it is not proper to convict them exclusively without
With the opinion of multiple authors present, individuals are left to make their own decision concerning the rights of capital punishment. To begin with, Lydia Child is the author of Against Capital Punishment; Child has a negative view towards those associated in supporting capital punishment. With this in mind, Child believes human life is a sacred gift and should not be discriminated against. In addition, Walter Rodgers expresses his feeling throughout the article America’s New Drug of Choice: Revenge. Rodgers reminds citizens life is not all about vengeance. Also, Rodgers reminds people about the history of executing innocent people in our nation. The two previous authors show a few perspectives regarding capital punishment.
Using capital punishment would put an end to the killer’s suffering, and let him leave the world peacefully. With the death penalty in place, the victim’s family can finally get closure. Families that have been through the intense experience of losing a loved one might call for lex talionis, or eye for an eye. They could believe that the killer took their loved one from them and the only acceptable recourse would be to take the murderer’s life. This retaliation for the family might be the most important reason to instill the death penalty in today’s
This paper will present facts that will help the reader understand the real nature of capital punishment, presenting the case against the death penalty for reasons of unconstitutionality and human rights violations.
... found justice for the victim who lost their lives at the hand of a criminal. The critics of capital punishment argue that the government over reached it authority pertaining to the death penalty and have sought to judge in God stead. However, the advocates of capital punishment argue that many nations whether modern or ancient has used capital punishment as a method of justice. This author think that capital murder is a debatable issue that should always be approach with caution.
Capital punishment, or death penalty, is one of the most controversial topics in the United States for a long time. Death penalty is when a criminal is put to death for committing crimes such as murder. Regarding this type of punishment, while there are many supporters who believe that the death penalty should be legalized throughout the nation, there is also a large number of people who against it. While Ernest van den Hagg believes that death penalty is a form of retributive justice that is needed to maintain the legal order by punishing the one who deserves to be punished, on the other hand, Hugo Adam Bedau believes that the purposes of death penalty are to be valued in term of utilitarianism, or giving positive consequences to the society.
For the victim, or the victim’s family, they would be able to come to a place of closure knowing that the trauma they had just gone through will no longer be a problem. However, the family members would have to deal with the consequences of pursuing the death penalty. They would also still have to grieve, and deal with the trauma they went through, but it would be lot harder to move on knowing the convicted criminal is still alive. The family members of the convicted criminal to be executed will be upset about the outcome, but they would more then likely be upset about their loved one being involved in the first place.
The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge. Capital punishment is a custom in which prisoners are executed in accordance with judicial practice when they are convicted of committing a “capital crime.”