3.4 Hinduism
As Buddhism, Hinduism contains teachings that both agrees and disagree with the capital punishment taking place. The religion preaches for “ahimsa”, or non-violence, but they also claim that the soul cannot be dead, but only the physical body. The soul will be reborn somehow, in other kind of life, as a soul “changing clothes from human to another”. The Dharmasastras and the Arthasastra, the religious, civil and criminal law of the Hindus describes numerous crimes and its punishments, calling for capital punishment in several occasions, such as murder and righteous warfare.
3.5 Islam
The Sharia Law is the religious law in Islam. The Sharia law is well known for their acceptance toward the capital punishment and other harsh punishments.
…show more content…
Capital punishment is required for a healthy society, and I agree that capital punishment is near to essential to keep the righteousness of the state. Many people claim that capital punishment is violent and outdated and they have many evidences backing themselves up, but almost all of them could be rebutted.
When asked “could there be a harsher but more humane punishment that capital punishment?” many will reply that violent criminals should be locked down for their life, regretting and living every day in guilt and self-disgust, suffering to look themselves in the mirror every day in their lives, and some people even claim that compared to this punishment, death penalty is actually way too easy, but much more inhumane. However, as we can see in various resources, many criminals who are convicted of extremely terrible crimes, whose crime is already harsh enough to sentence death penalty, often never show the sign of regret or guilt, but live their life in prison swearing, shouting and laughing all their lifetime. The criminals who commit extreme crimes are often the people who are dedicated to “revenge to the society” of their failure or hatred, and they often have nothing to lose, including their conscience. They often tell their stories of committing crime as some kind of “heroic exploits”, and many are already psychopath, not able to feel any emotions, including guilt. For these people, such punishment would do nothing but using up the
…show more content…
In old times, many people were praised as heroes as they were executed, because they either fought for their religion, their state and against the tyranny, eventually getting executed by evil legislative force and becoming a martyr. This is no longer possible. As the society and the legislative systems are very mature now, a prisoner who will be executed is always the evil one, proven guilty by law and the public. Many inmates in USA death rows went into the row often because the public outrage toward them. In current legislative system no terrorists or violent criminals could ever be praised as a
Capital Punishment should NOT be abolished, because it is the only punishment that fits the
Capital punishment is not an effective punishment or deterrent for murder or any crime for various reasons. To many prisoners, being detained in a prison is much more of a punishment than death as is it a constant, conscious deprivation of liberty and rights. This idea is represented though US Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh who claimed after dropping his appeals against his death sentence that he would rather die than...
As seen, capital punishment is a barbaric tool used for centuries to punish wrong doers. As society evolves, so does its beliefs. But many stare so long at the past they do not see the future. People must realize that society has come a long way and capital punishment is a step in the wrong direction. Capital punishment must remain in the past and not in the future.
Since the early settlers first stepped foot on what is now the United States of America, capital punishment has been reserved as a form of punishment for the people who have committed some of society’s most heinous crimes. Recently, support of capital punishment has begun to erode due to the advancements of DNA technology and groups, such as the Innocence Project. Capital punishment, however, remains to be an appropriate form of punishment for someone convicted of capital crimes, and may be effective in deterring such offenses.
The death penalty has been around since the beginning of time as a means of punishing criminals, undisputed until the last century or so in terms of whether or not it is an ethical practice. The proponents for the death penalty offer up its ability to deter crime as their main reason for supporting it, their view supported by a functionalist sociological view in that using the death penalty, enough fear will be generated that people will refrain from committing the types of crime that the death penalty is applicable to (Schaefer, 2009). Another reason for favoring it are of an emotional nature; if a person commits a crime of a particularly horrible nature, many may feel that they deserve the death penalty, feeling that “an eye for an eye” is befitting for such a case (Jillette, Teller, & Price, 2006). It should be asked though, is emotional response and a theory of deterrence enough to justify the use of the death penalty? In this paper, I will answer that question and others.
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
Capital punishment is unconstitutional, and violates human rights; a point of view rarely seen when debating the topic. Everyone talks about deterrence, everyone talks about justice for the victim, but no one seems to remember that even though the person responsible for a crime, whatever the nature of this crime is, is still a human being with constitutional, and human rights just like all of us.
I believe that capital punishment is necessary to ensure justice. Certain criminals commit crimes so great that they warrant death. The emotional tolls of the people around the victim can be alleviated by the death of the perpetrator. Prisons are inherently difficult to run, and capital punishment reduces the efforts that must be expended to successfully manage a prison. Capital punishment reduces crime in the way that it offers an incentive great enough to prevent offenses such as mass murder. Capital punishment holds much support in its favor, and I believe that it should remain.
...rice). Even though, some individuals who committed violent severe crimes deserve to be sentenced to death, capital punishment is an easy way out for them. Indeed, being kept in a single prison cell for the rest of their lives without a chance to communicate with people and see sunshine is the best punishment for these miserable creatures.
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.
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.”
I believe that under certain circumstances that capital punishment should be allowed because if someone is going to commit mass murder they should pay with the ultimate human right which is of their life. This topic has been widely thought of in the world with a few philosophers really encompassing my views. Those are the views of Ernest Van Den Haag and Bruce Fein. Philosophers who oppose our views are such like Justice William Brennan and Hugo Adam Bedau. I will prove my point using the ideas of deterrence and morality of the issue of capital punishment. If the government would show that if you kill someone there will be a consequence for their actions and that the consequence would be equal to what they have done. The population will see that it isn’t worth taking another humans life. If we were to kill people that are committing these mass killings of innocent people there would not be as many criminals around. Therefore the streets would be a place people wouldn’t be afraid of anymore.
Capital Punishment is Necessary Capital punishment is necessary in order for justice to prevail. Capital punishment is the execution of criminals for committing crimes that are regarded as so bad that death is the only acceptable punishment. Capital punishment serves to lower the murder rate, but also has value as a form of retribution. Fairness is determined by the judicial system. As a form of punishment, it saves money when compared to a life sentence.
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.
Capital Punishment is a controversial topic discussed in today's society. Capital punishment is often not as harsh in other countries as we may call harsh in our country. There is a heated debate on whether states should be able to kill other humans or not. But if we shall consider that other countries often have more deadly death penalties than we do. People that are in favor of the death penalty say that it saves money by not paying for housing in a maximum prison but what about our smaller countries that abide by the rule of the capital punishment. If one were to look at the issues behind capital punishment in an anthropological prospective than one would see that in some cases no one would assume that capital punishment here in the U.S. is bad. Now those opposed say that it is against the constitution, and is cruel and unusual punishment for humans to be put to his or her death. I believe that the death penalty is against the constitution and is cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is cruel because you cannot punish anyone worse than by killing them. It is an unusual punishment because it does not happen very often and it should not happen at all. Therefore, I think that capital punishment should be abolished, everywhere.