The question of ethical behavior is an age-old conundrum. The prevailing issue with ethics is that it is extremely difficult to measure. A person’s moral fabric is largely based on their particular personality traits, as well as, their psychological state and environmental influences. Many believe that ethics are tied to a person’s conscience, and that good morals are often facilitated by a strong religious background. Furthermore, a person’s moral development can be linked to their economic situation and cultural differences. Interestingly, even while examining the status of one’s moral code is challenging; everyone seems to have their own unique array of ethics.
While this is an ambiguous subject, wracked with speculation and ambivalence, it is an appealing topic of study. A curious facet of the ethical dilemma is that it transcends various fields of interest. The ethics issue is scrutinized by philosophers and psychologists, but this theme is frequently introduced in other curricula. Accounting, for example, has its own set of ethical mandates. Moreover, nearly every profession is impacted by a generally accepted code of ethics – doctors, lawyers, contractors, and the list goes on! In fact, almost every day an individual is confronted with a moral decision.
Presently, a driving ethical debate in the United States is the decision to embrace or abolish the death penalty. This debate is notable because it impacts several different segments of society. Capital punishment can prove to be beneficial to our community because practicing the death penalty, both appropriately and efficiently, can produce advantageous results. Consider the amount of government money being hemorrhaged into the justice system; as well as, the poignant...
... middle of paper ...
...athetic indifference, is it ethical for them to be granted life?
Another, perhaps disparate, element to the moral quandary of capital punishment stems from a more economic perspective. Consider all of the government money being hemorrhaged into the penal system, is it “right” for tax-payer dollars to be spent keeping these people alive?! The vast majority of murderers have forfeited their function in society, and now they are being supported indefinitely until they die. These people are getting three meals a day, exercise, television time, and they are even allowed communal privileges. Many of these revolting degenerates live a more carefree and structured life in the clink than some impoverished citizens.
However, the deceased victim, an often overlooked component of this intriguing debate should be presented as an essential staple to the ethics examination.
Capital punishment in the United States is a highly debated topic. Arguments that want to get rid of this method of punishment usually mention the many problems that capital punishment is plagued with. The death penalty has many issues that cannot be resolved, and since these issues can’t be solved, the death penalty should be abolished. “The irrevocable nature of the death penalty renders it an unsustainable and indefensible remedy in an imperfect justice system.” (Evans 3) Even though the death penalty has been around since the 18th century, capital punishment has many issues such as wrongful convictions and high costs, proving it should be eliminated.
Capital punishment has long been a topic for heated debate throughout the United States of America and the civilized world. For many politicians, the death penalty has been a key pillar to winning a state or election; and, to some extent, politics have been a key influence in America’s justice system. Many nations have outlawed capital punishment, with the United States included between 1972 and 1976. In the United States, there has been a renewed movement for this “eye for an eye” method, citing such arguments as “deterrence” and “victims’ rights.” This movement begs a single question – is there any economical, legal, or statistical support for the ultimate punishment? This article will strive to answer that question by evaluating several key issues (be they supporting or otherwise) concerning capital punishment – the legitimacy of ‘deterrence,’ the legality of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause, and the cost associated with putting a man to death in relation to the cost associated with life imprisonment.
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.
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
Mappes, Thomas A., Jane S. Zembaty, and David DeGrazia. "The Death Penalty." Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 105-53. Print.
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.
This essay will discuss the various views regarding the death penalty and its current status in the United States. It can be said that almost all of us are familiar with the saying “An eye for an eye” and for most people that is how the death penalty is viewed. In most people’s eyes, if a person is convicted without a doubt of murdering someone, it is believed that he/she should pay for that crime with their own life. However, there are some people who believe that enforcing the death penalty makes society look just as guilty as the convicted. Still, the death penalty diminishes the possibility of a convicted murderer to achieve the freedom needed to commit a crime again; it can also be seen as a violation of the convicted person’s rights going against the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The death penalty remains a very controversial and highly criticized topic. Both sides argue vehemently from many different angles about the constitutionality, morality, and justice of the death penalty; but, both sides know that there must be some form of punishment for the violent criminals who commit murder. The conflict arises with the question, “what punishment is fair for a convicted murderer?”
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
The question regarding whether the United States should implement the death penalty as a form of punishment is a heated issue in American politics. The topic is so divisive because it deals with death, which is permanent. Life is valued in every society, and when life is taken away, emotions rise. Most human beings maintain a strong underlying fear of dying, so they wish to prevent their own death, especially their murder, at any cost. Furthermore, since crime is a prevalent problem in the U.S., Americans yearn for a successful way to reduce the homicide rate. However, most Americans do not favor the use of the death penalty when other options, such as life in prison without parole plus restitution, are presented (Dieter). By comparing the empirical and moral claims of the arguments in favor and against the use of the death penalty, we suggest that the presidential candidate take a cautiously anti-death penalty stance.
In order to defend my standing in this argument I will reason that the use of capital punishment has many benefits that trump any possible objections. Special attention will be given to the topics of deterrence, the families of the victims, and the increased population that has been occurring within our prisons. Any possible objections will also be assessed including criticism regarding the monetary value of the use of the death penalty and opposition to this practice due to its characteristics, which some identify as hypocritical and inhumane. My goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is not to use this practice extensively but rather to reduce the use to a minimum and use it only when necessary.
When innocent lives are put at risk, costs are increased, and when there is a much more ethical alternative, why should the death penalty be in place? The death penalty does not decline murder rates, so why should it even be considered. Banning the death penalty would also cut costs of the government. The government should not be able execute some and not others because of the financial state of the defendant or of unfair trials. No matter the case, the death penalty risks the loss of innocent lives! It is a no brainer, the death penalty is an unethical answer for the justice of terrible
Ethics and morality are the founding reasons for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, leading to the highly contentious nature of the debate. When heinous crimes are com...
The death penalty has been an ongoing debate for many years. Each side of the issue presents valid arguments to explain why someone should be either for or against the subject. One side of the argument says deterrence, the other side says there’s a likelihood of putting to death an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder itself. Crime is an unmistakable part of our society, and it is safe to say that everyone would concur that something must be done about it. The majority of people know the risk of crime to their lives, but the subject lies in the techniques and actions in which it should be dealt with. As the past tells us, capital punishment, whose meaning is “the use of death as a legally sanctioned punishment,” is a suitable and proficient means of deterring crime. Today, the death penalty resides as an effective method of punishment for murder and other atrocious crimes.
“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.