Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What is the history of punishment
The history of punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Capital Punishment: Justice in Retribution
The American government operates in the fashion of an indirect democracy. Citizens live under a social contract whereby individuals agree to forfeit certain rights for the good of the whole. Punishments for crimes against the state are carried out via due process, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The use of capital punishment is decided by the state, which is legal in thirty-seven states. It is a moral imperative to protect the states' rights to decide their own position on the use of capital punishment.
Capital punishment is a method of retributive punishment as old as civilization itself. Both the Greeks and the Romans invoked the death penalty for a wide variety of offenses. Socrates and Jesus were perhaps the most famous people ever condemned for a capital crime in the ancient period. Hammurabi's Code, a code of laws developed by the king of one of the first empires, dates back from the third or second millennium before Christ. This code claims that retribution, an eye for an eye and a life for a life, is justice. In Anglo-American law the death penalty has been a customary response to certain kinds of offenses. The movement in America to have the death penalty declared unconstitutional received paramount attention during the landmark case of 'Furman v. Georgia,' rendered on June 29, 1972, which declared the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment. No executions took place between 1967 and 1977 (Bedau, 1992). However, after a supreme court decision in 1975 'Gregg v. Georgia', which stated capital punishment did not violate the Eighth Amendment, executions commenced again under state supervision. Should capital punishment be continued? Retribution is a ju...
... middle of paper ...
...nal awaits the sentence to be carried out. This lesson may be said not to benefit society since it is too late for the criminal. It is also too late for the victim who was murdered in cold blood. To look at this as "bloodthirsty revenge" would be saying that capital punishment is itself the injustice. Is it not an injustice to let a cold-blooded killer escape the consequences of a crime? A society that tolerates injustice can by no means be called just.
Works Cited
Bedau, Hugo Adam. In Spite of Innocence. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992.
Block, Eugene B.. When Men Play God: The Fallacy of Capital Punishment. San Francisco: Cragmont Publications, 1983.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Civil Government. Ch 2, Sec 6.
Meltser, Michael. Cruel and Unusual: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment. New York: Random House, 1973.
Colson, Charles W. “Capital Punishment.” The Rutherford Institute. 11 Nov. 2002. 30 May 2010 .
In the early 1950’s, the number of executions sharply declined. Opponents of the death penalty claimed that it violated the Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Opponents also claimed the death penalty violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. In early 1972, William Furman was convicted of burglary and murder. While Furman was burglarizing a home, a resident arrived at the scene. Startled, Furman tried to flee, but tripped and fell in the process. The gun Furman was carrying discharged, killing the resident in the process. Furman did not believe he deserved the death penalty. The constitutionality of capital punishment in this circumstance was considered in the supreme co...
Likewise, violent protests raise awareness in a negative and oftentimes irrational light. Following the tragic shooting of Michael Brown in the fall of 2014***, countless riots shed light on a new twist on a century-old issue; race in America. The man shot was an African-American, unarmed, young adult. He was shot by a white police officer who believed the young man to be a threat to his safety. His death became the catalyst for the modern Black Lives Matter movement’s stance on equality in American justice systems. While the movement places an emphasis on a need for change, much like Martin Luther King did in the 1960’s, the mass riots from Ferguson, Missouri to Baltimore, Maryland contradict civil disobedience. The riots caused hundreds of vandalisms, countless injuries of police officers in both cities, and created fear for the movement. Awareness for the issues were raised because of this movement, but the violent initial spark of it derailed the solid proof of the need for change. This further proves the necessity that civil disobedience is on a free society; peaceable expression of views has a heavier weight when it comes to altering the course of a
Although most people would find violence a necessity to gaining what they want, Caesar Chavez recognizes the benefits of nonviolent resistance. Violence is the instinctive reaction people have to a variety of situations. This was often the case with opposing views people had during the Civil Rights Era. In a magazine of religious organization the author Chavez emphasizes how nonviolent resistance will earn them equal rights with little to no bloodshed through the use of several rhetorical devices.
Sometimes civil disobedience can become violent as in the case in South Africa during the struggle to end apartied. It started out with passive resistance, but after years of struggling with no change, a violent group was formed and was willing to do anything to get the freedom they desired.
A key argument expressed within “A Force More Powerful” is that non-violent protest is an effective method to motivate social and political change. The documentary provides three case studies as historical instances where non-violent protest met high levels of success. A main purpose of the filmmakers is to investigate the non-violent aspects of popular uprisings that had been previously underestimated in terms of their contribution to a larger conflict. The instances taken as case studies are all of groups marginalised due to racial, colonial, and economic reasons. The histories of the conflicts from which arise the case studies are given only briefly, with a focus upon the groups shown to be oppressed by their respective states and governmental institutions.
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.
In this paper I will argue for the moral permissibility of the death penalty and I am fairly confident that when the case for capital punishment is made properly, its appeal to logic and morality is compelling. The practice of the death penalty is no longer as wide-spread as it used to be throughout the world; in fact, though the death penalty was nearly universal in past societies, only 71 countries world-wide still officially permit the death penalty (www.infoplease.com); the U.S. being among them. Since colonial times, executions have taken place in America, making them a part of its history and tradition. Given the pervasiveness of the death penalty in the past, why do so few countries use the death penalty, and why are there American states that no longer sanction its use? Is there a moral wrong involved in the taking of a criminal’s life? Of course the usual arguments will be brought up, but beyond the primary discourse most people do not go deeper than their “gut feeling” or personal convictions. When you hear about how a family was ruthlessly slaughtered by a psychopathic serial killer most minds instantly feel that this man should be punished, but to what extent? Would it be just to put this person to death?
The death penalty has been promoted for thousands of years, for countless crimes committed by humans. The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. The death penalty was also part of the Fourteenth Century B.C.'s Hittite Code; in the Seventh Century B.C.'s Draconian Code of Athens, which made death the only punishment for all crimes; and in the Fifth Century B.C.'s Roman law of the Twelve Tablets. Death sentences were carried out by such means as crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement. Now in today’s society the most common methods of execution are; firing squad, hanging, and in recent years: lethal injection which is undeniably more humane than any other form of execution throughout history. The death penalty has been used to protect society from the iniquities that mankind has presented itself. The criminals, rapists, murderers, and sadists, who harm innocent people, should undeniably forfeit their own right to live as Margaret Thatcher has stated. The use of capital punishment is essential to the security of our nation and the justice in which those who are innocent and those who are the victims deserve.
Since the 1700’s forms of the death penalty have been used for one reason or another, but today some disagree with this judicial practice. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment imposed for murder or other capital offenses, and in Alabama a capital offense is murder with eighteen aggravating factors. In 1972 the Supreme Court moved away from abolition, holding that “the punishment of death does not invariably violate the constitution” (Bedau, Case against 2). Since 1900, in this country, there have been on the average more than four cases each year in which an entirely innocent person was convicted of murder (Bedau 7) and because of these startling numbers people are against capital punishment. It is a horrible reality to convict an innocent person of a crime and even worse to put this person on death row. There are even more horrific stories, like the one of Roger Keith Coleman, who was executed in Virginia despite widely pu...
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.
From Black Lives Matter protests to Pro-Gun protests- if you have an opinion there is a group willing to voice it with you. Civil disobedience is uncomfortable. It calls you to make a choice, to take a side or at least consider one seriously. While uncomfortable and awkward for the passerby, the right to peacefully protest is an important one that keeps free society from becoming stagnant. It forces not only the every day citizen to have an opinion, but also those in power to look closely at the decisions and impact of such
The “tension” that nonviolent direct action creates, can become a positive force which may enable change; far better than violent direct action as, who would want to listen to a violent person? The violent person is likely to snap under pressure; however the nonviolent person can better bend to logic. In fact one of the meanings of the word violent is “of, relating to, or constituting a distortion of meaning or fact.”
In the months leading up to President Trump’s presidency, there have been a constant flow of protests and marches against his policies and political views. With the mass demonstrations taking place every other week about a different issue, it is important to examine whether peaceful resistance is beneficial to a free society or rather becomes a nuisance to the public. Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a society because it allows groups to freely express their opinions and mold government to fit society’s changing morals.
To discern the overall effects of civil disobedience on a society, one must consider the purpose of a government, and determine the lesser of the two evils that the concept of peaceful resistance may bring about.