How often have we heard the statement “Two wrongs don’t make a right”? Yet, is this saying ever really applied to our lives? When do we ever turn the other cheek? As far as history is concerned, the human race has never felt the sting of a hand consecutively on both sides.
Evidence to this can be found anywhere. Soldiers kill the enemy to win the war. Athletes become violent in order to obtain a trophy. And, in the judicial system, the ultimate crime of murder is dealt with the ultimate punishment of death. Yet, it poses the question does the end really justify the means? Can society’s practice of the death penalty be considered a moral disgrace?
Justice is not without faults. Canadians Guy Paul Morin and David Milgaard were both wrongfully accused of murder. Both men spent many years serving out a penalty which should have never been bestowed upon them. Although, if the death penalty was common practice in Canada, these innocent victims may have been executed. They may have been killed. Murdered. All because of a guilty verdict and society’s desire to extinguish the flame of violence. The desire to have revenge. Yet, does the elimination of an offender bring back their victims or heal the wounds of the families? Should we consent to causing pain for another family by killing their child? If the offender was your child, would you want to watch them die?
Of course, there is always the argument that the threat of death acts as a deterrent to threatening offenders. However, the claim that this act really does deter violent crime is inconclusive, not proven, and extremely difficult to disprove. For every set of statistics saying that it lowers the amount of violent crime, there is another to say it doesn’t and another that states it does both. Using such an ambiguous argument to support a controversial act is not only unacceptable, but it is irresponsible. If there is any validity to this argument, it is negated by the actual amount of time an offender spends on death row.
Endless appeals, delays, technicalities, and retrials keep those condemned to death waiting for execution for years on end. If the majority of death row residents live to an old age anyway, why would anyone be afraid of capital punishment? It would be just as easy to sentence offenders to life of captivity and work in a prison.
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.
Since the fear of death is an intrinsic fear mutually shared by the majority of the human race, it is only logical that humans would attempt to avoid encounters with death. Because of “the fear of death and the horror of the execution”, citizens may think twice before “committing serious crimes” (Source A). Citizens, therefore, would be less likely to partake in a crime that would assign them to death row. With less citizens participating in crimes, the world becomes a safer place. Still, critics continue to argue that “There is no proof that the death penalty has a deterrent effect” (Source A). Even though these critics are correct in that there is no proof, research would nearly be impossible to conduct due to the numerous variables that affect criminal activity. Because of the rationale behind the natural fear of death, it is logical to infer that the death penalty does in fact dissuade criminals from committing truly horrendous
Capital punishment, otherwise known as “The Death Penalty,” has been around for many years and has been the cause of death for over twelve hundred inmates since 1976 (“Death Penalty Information Center”), but is the Death Penalty really beneficial to the American public? This question is in the back of many people’s minds, and has left many questioning the meaning of the punishment. The death penalty targets murderers or high profile cases. Some say that the death penalty should apply to those who murder, rape, or abuse human beings such as children, or women. The significance of the penalty is to teach these criminals that there are laws that must be followed. In a figurative sense, it is to teach those potential wrongdoers a lesson. By examining the facts around us, we can gain a greater sense of security, and a greater understanding of what the death penalty can accomplish, all while assessing the high-quality aspects that the penalty has to offer.
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.
murder rates in given areas both before and after an execution. Clear and cole(2000) have
Testament Exodus 21:24 - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth".
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?”
Above all else, it costs too much of hard working taxpayers’ dollars to send someone to prison. It costs a large amount of money each year to keep a person in prison. Why should we pay that much money for those who willingly inflict pain or harm with no cause or concern? There are about thirty-three hundred people on death row. Fifty to sixty percent of inmates are now executed each year, most after having served ten years on death row (Senna and Sigel 430). The opposition will say the monetary units cannot take the place or be substituted for human life. However, capital punishment is not a moral injustice. Look at what we kill. Lion’s and tigers: cause it’s fun. House fly’s and mosquito’s: cause their pests. Pheasants and quail: cause we’re hungry, and it’s fun. We rarely see a bumper sticker that says "save the roaches". So, at most, this sanctity of life that these anti-capital punishment people try to portray to us is selective. We get to deem which forms of life are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Is this actually what we’re supposed to believe? If one is to argue that the death penalty is demoralizing to our values, then that person should take a look at our world.
If there is a desire by the American people to maintain the death penalty, let us at least be spared the hypocrisy of a justification by example. The death penalty is a penalty, to be sure, a frightful torture, both physical and moral, but it provides no sure example except a demoralizing one. It punishes, but it forestalls nothing; indeed, it may even arouse the impulse to murder. It hardly seems to exist, except for the man who suffers it-- in his soul for months and years, in his body during the desperate and violent hour when he is cut in two without suppressing his life. Let us call it by the name which, for lack of any other nobility, will at least give the nobility of truth, and let us recognize it for what it is essentially: a revenge.
Capital Punishment For my Personal Research Study (PRS), I am going to research Capital Punishment. Capital Punishment is about taking a life for a life(s). For example if you commit a crime like Murder and you are convicted of murdering someone you could end up being killed by "The Electric Chair" or you could get an injection that will kill you. Capital Punishment is an interesting topic because people have debated about this subject for years.
On the other side of the debate, there are those that believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. For most criminals, they are aware of the fact that if they get caught, they will be sent to prison. However, other than being sent to prison, there are not really any other repercussions for committing a crime. They argue that if a person were to be presented with the possibility of the death penalty, they would more than likely think twice about their actions and realize that there are more risks than just im...
Opposing the death penalty does not mean sympathy with convicted murderers. On the contrary, murder and manslaughter both demonstrate a lack of respect for life. For this very reason, a policy of state-authorized killings is immoral. Criminals no doubt need to be punished, but severity of punishment should have its limits, beginning with the use of human dignity. Governments that respect these limits do not use premeditated and violent homicide as an instrument of keeping the peace.
Conforming to the correct rules of conduct, or moral values, reflect an individual’s views about life. Morality draws the dividing line between what is right and wrong. When developing an opinion toward the death penalty, one immediately drifts toward a certain side. Introduced to world justice systems early on, the death penalty became a means of punishment for those who committed crimes deemed as morally reprehensible. Although taking the lives of many, this frequently challenged action remains a controversial topic in modern American society. Essentially, the use of the death penalty not only defies the principles of living entitled to every human being, but the practice also reflects the decline in American society’s critical thinking process. The act of taking another human being’s life for the purpose of justice only satisfies immoral and vengeful attitudes. In order to create a more civilized and morally grounded society, the penalty of death as a means for punishment should be abolished.
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.
"Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder... People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death... life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death... Therefore, a life sent...