More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast the arguments for and against capital punishment
Arguments for capital punishment
Compare and contrast the arguments for and against capital punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Capital Punishment – It’s Time to Turn the Other Cheek If... he has committed murder, he must die. In this case, there is no substitute that will satisfy the legal requirements of legal justice.There is no sameness of kind between death and remaining alive even under the most miserable conditions, and consequently there is no equality between crime and the retribution unless the criminal is judicially condemned and put to death." Immanuel Kant. About 2000 men, women, and teenagers currently wait on America's "Death Row." Their time grows shorter as federal and state courts increasingly ratify death penalty laws, allowing executions to proceed at an accelerated rate. It's unlikely that any of these executions will make the front page, having become more and more a matter of routine in the last decade. Indeed, recent public opinion polls show a wide margin of support for the death penalty. But human rights advocates continue to decry the immorality of state-sanctioned killing in the U.S., the only western industrialized country that continues to use the death penalty. Is capital punishment moral? Capital punishment is often defended on the grounds by the government, that society has a moral obligation to protect the safety and the welfare of its citizens. Murderers threaten this safety and welfare. Only by putting murderers to death can society ensure that convicted killers do not kill again. Second, those favoring capital punishment contend that society should support those practices that will bring about the greatest balance of good over evil, and capital punishment is one such practice. Capital punishment benefits society because it may deter violent crime. While it is difficult to produce direct evidence to support this claim since, by definition, those who are deterred by the death penalty do not commit murders, common sense tells us that they will die if they perform a certain act, they will be unwilling to perform that act. If the threat of death stays in the hand of a would-be murder, and we abolish the death penalty, we will sacrifice the lives of many innocent victims whose murders could have been deterred. But if, in fact, the death penalty does not deter, and we continue to impose it, we have only sacrificed the lives of convicted murderers. Surely it is better for society to take a gamble that the death penalty deters in order to protect the lives of innocent people than to take a gamble that it doesn't deter and thereby protect the lives of murderers, while risking the lives of the innocents. Finally, defenders of capital punishment argue that justice demands that
that we must do as we think we should, and not try to control anyone but
Even Miranda, Prospero’s daughter, speaks in a way that categorizes Caliban as an uneducated and uncivilized savage. “I pitied thee, Took pains to make thee speak, taught thee each hour […] When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning […]” (1.2.356-359) Miranda doesn’t stop there; she continues labeling Caliban, “But thy vile race, though thou didst learn, had that in’t which good natures could not abide to be with; therefore wast though deservedly confined into this rock […]” (1.2.361-364). Exactly this kind of discourse turns Caliban into a subject. If Caliban had not been alone on the island, then Prospero and Miranda would have categorized a whole group of human beings rather than just one.
...morally justified our future actions. This entire proposal is not here to tell society what is being done at the current state, but it is telling you what you are obligated to do as a human being. If we took the moral standpoint, as we should, at all times when making decisions, we would find that moral justification would take a backseat to obligation.
...for that individual is the nation as a whole if all individual rights are observed then the rights of your public have taken care of themselves. “We can have as much or as little crime as we please; depending on what we choose to count as criminal.” Herbet L.Packer.
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.
Early societies were based on a simple code of law: "an eye for an eye
The assimilation policy was a policy that existed between the 1940’s and the 1970’s, and replaced that of protectionism. Its purpose was to have all persons of aboriginal blood and mixed blood living like ‘white’ Australians, this established practice of removing Aboriginal children (generally half-bloods) from their homes was to bring them up without their culture, and they were encouraged to forget their aboriginal heritage. Children were placed in institutions where they could be 'trained' to take their place in white society. During the time of assimilation Aboriginal people were to be educated for full citizenship, and have access to public education, housing and services. However, most commonly aboriginal people did not receive equal rights and opportunities, for example, their wages were usually less than that paid to the white workers and they often did not receive recognition for the roles they played in the defence of Australia and their contribution to the cattle industry. It wasn’t until the early 1960’s that expendi...
...aust. He saw his race as superior because of its ability to concur not its strength to survive. Herbert Spencer also believed that human advancement was taking from, or destroying other less advanced human races. Examples of this are the colonisation of Australia and India by the British in which they had no problem treating the people of these countries in a bad way. Colonial Britain could justify this racism with Social Darwinism on the basis that they had the power to take over therefore had the right. These ideas were popular in the west in the 19th century because it was a time of much colonisation and Social Darwinism justified the mistreatment of others. Social Darwinism was basically an excuse for racism and although based very roughly around Darwin’s Origin of Species it was used putting the person writing as the superior subject, never in a scientific way.
This includes the need to prioritize one's conscience over the dictates of laws, based on the principle by Thoreau that we men should be first, and subjects afterwards. People have an important duty to refuse a government that is corrupt, and distance themselves from these unjust institutions.
Parbury (1999:64) states that Aboriginal education “cannot be separated” from the non-Aboriginal attitudes (racially based ethnocentricity that were especially British ie. white and Christian) towards Aborigines, their culture and their very existence. The Mission Schools are an early example of the connection between official education policies and key events in Aboriginal history. Aboriginal children were separated from their parents and placed into these schools which according to McGrath (as cited by Parbury, 1999:66) it was recommended that these establishments be located ‘as far as possible’ from non Aboriginal residents so as to minimize any heathen influence that Aboriginal children might be subject to from their parents. Mission Schools not only prepared Aboriginal youth for the manual labour market but also, adds Parbury (1999:67) their aim was‘to destroy Aboriginal culture and replace it with an Anglo-European work and faith ethic.’ Despite the NSW Public Instruction Act (1880) which made education free, secular and compulsory for all children Aboriginal children could be excluded from public schools based on prevailing dominant group attitudes. Consequently, the NSW Aborigines Protection Act (1909) was introduced as a result of a perceived public education crisis and Laws had already been passed, similar to protectionist type policies. This Act gave the State the power to remove Aboriginal children from their families whereby this period of time has become known as ‘Stolen Generations.’ It was during this time that Aboriginal children were segregated from mainstream schools. (Parbury, 1999; Lippman, 1994).
Americans have argued over the death penalty since the early days of our country. In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes. As of year ended in 1999, in Texas, the state had executed 496 prisoners since 1930. The laws in the United States have change drastically in regards to capital punishment. An example of this would be the years from 1968 to 1977 due to the nearly 10 year moratorium. During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes.”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment. While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that is capital punishment being used for vengeance or as a deterrent.
Throughout the first half of the 3rd century, source information relies heavily on the writings of Eusebius, a Roman historian. When he talks about evidence of Christ...
Capital punishment has been a controversial topic in association to any person condemned to a serious committed crime. Capital punishment has been a historical punishment for any cruel crime. Issues associated to things such as the different methods used for execution in most states, waste of taxpayers’ money by performing execution, and how it does not serve as any form of justice have been a big argument that raise many eyebrows. Capital punishment is still an active form of deterrence in the United States. The history of the death penalty explains the different statistics about capital punishment and provides credible information as to why the form of punishment should be abolished by every state. It is believed
Crime is everywhere. Wherever we look, we find criminals and crime. Criminals have become a part of our daily lives. Does this mean we let them be the darkness of our society? No, definitely not. Eliminating crime and criminals is our duty, and we cannot ignore it. Getting the rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. Some criminals commit a crime because they have no other option to survive, but some do it for fun. I do not advocate death penalty for everybody. A person, who stole bread from a grocery store, definitely does not deserve death penalty. However, a serial killer, who kills people for fun or for his personal gain, definitely deserves death penalty. Death penalty should continue in order to eliminate the garbage of our society. Not everybody deserves to die, but some people definitely do. I support death penalty because of several reasons. Firstly, I believe that death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime. Secondly, it is true that death penalty is irreversible, but it is hard to kill a wrongly convicted person due to the several chances given to the convicted to prove his innocence. Thirdly, death penalty assures safety of the society by eliminating these criminals. Finally, I believe in "lex tallionis" - a life for a life.
The right to Life, Liberty, and Security, is one of the most important citizen rights that you can have. With the right to life, it means that any individual has the right to live, and shouldn’t be killed by anyone. With the right to Liberty, it means that we have the right to be free, and do almost anything we want. Lastly, the right to security means that you are guaranteed to be protected the best way possible, while you are in that country. Even though it is just one of many rights, they all fall under the right to freedom. Which everyone just wants the right to do what they want, and to stand up for what they believe in. Everyone should have the right to freedom, as well as the right to life, liberty, and security.We felt that this right was the most important because it summed up the rights that we need as citizens. Like the right to not be enslaved, can count as the right to Life and Liberty. So in our opinion, the right to Life, Liberty, and Security, is the one that should be one of the first applied rights to our lives. The next few paragraphs will describe how we feel on these particular rights, as well as examples of how these rights are being violated all over the world.