More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments For Capital Punishment
Arguments for and against the death penalty
Cases in the relationship between law and morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. One major discussion about the pros and cons of capital punishment is if it would deter other criminals from committing extreme crimes. I believe that allowing the practice of capital punishment would deter other people from committing such crimes, which would result in more innocent lives saved. Ernest Van Den Haag says in a New York Times Article from 1983, "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... ... middle of paper ... ...complete mental health believes that killing other human beings for his own happiness and enjoyment, he is not fit to live in this world and therefore should be taken out of it before more harm is put in place to more innocent human lives, those lives of which may be someone who makes the cure to cancer, connects all countries together through harmony, or is able to prolong the lives of many deserving people. If we eliminate those who have done wrong we will harper a world in which right is encouraged by all and with that we will live in a more enjoyable friendly environment. Works Cited Bonevac, Daniel A. Today's Moral Issues: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Pub., 1992. Print. Fein, Bruce. "Individual Rights and Responsibility - The Death Penalty, But Sparingly." Speech. American Bar Association. Feb. 2003. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.
According to Radelet & Borg (2000), deterrence was, in the past, the most frequently-cited reason for arguments in support of the death penalty. The claim stems from a belief that potential criminals will be less likely to commit severe acts of violence if they know that those who carried out similar crimes before them were put to death – in much the same way that heads on pikes at the gates of a city were intended to deter criminal activity in the Middle Ages. Recently, however, many studies have concluded that the death penalty offers no significant deterrent effects, and the few which claim to find support for these effects have received substantial criticism (Radelet & Borg, 2000). The majority of both criminologists and law enforcement officers surveyed expressed that they do not believe the death penalty offers any difference in the amount of violent crimes committed (Radelet & Borg, 2000).
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.
Robert Lee makes many arguments to argue justification of capital punishment in his article, “Deserving to Die.” Some of the stronger ones involve the deterrent effect of the use of the death penalty, why the cost of execution is so high, and how the use of the death penalty increases overall public safety. In Lee’s first argument, he argues that the use of capital punishment helps reduce overall crime by acting as a deterrent to crime. In at least one respect, capital punishment is unquestionably a deterrent, as Lee puts it, “It simply cannot be contested that a killer, once executed, is forever deterred from killing again” (142). Of course, a deceased killer can never kill again, but the effect that death penalty has on others, potential future criminals, is the important question. Lee argues that whether or not it is a deterrent, relies on how swiftly and surely the death penalty is executed. The majority of people are afraid of dying, and if they could choose, would prefer not to die anytime soon. This proves how the death penalty can be a deterrent to other potential criminals to not kill someone, out of fear that they will be put to death themselves. There have also been some circumstances where actual statistical evidence proves the deterrent effect of capital punishment. In the time since the Utah Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that capital punishment be legalized again in the state, there have been three executions. After each of the executions, specifically the year after the executions took place, there were significant decreases in both the number and the rate of murders within the state, compared to previous year(s) (Lee 143). Lee himself does acknowledge that of course there are other variables that could have influence...
“Death penalty is a deterrent,” by George E. Pataki and “The Death Penalty Should Not Be Abolished,” by David B. Muhlhausen are two articles that support capital punishment as a deterrent of crime. “Legalized Murder: The Death Penalty Serves Revenge and Does Nothing to Solve Crime,” by Michael J. Ring and “The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished,” published by Amnesty International, are two articles that oppose capital punishment as a deterrent to crime by discussing the risks of the “inhumane” form of punishment. The following discussions show the contrasting point-of-views that make capital punishment one of the most controversial topics of today’s society.
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.
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.
“The case Against the Death Penalty.” aclu.org. American Civil Liberties Union, 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013
The people in support of the death penalty say that if murderers are sentenced to death, future committers will think about the consequences before they actually proceed with the crime. However, most murderers don’t expect or plan to be caught and weigh their fate. Because, murders are committed when the murderer is angry or passionate, or by drug abusers and people under the influence of drugs or alcohol ("Deterrence (In Opposition to the Death Penalty)”). Therefore, it will not deter future crimes and will actually increase the amount of murders because of society. As previously stated, the death penalty isn’t proven to prevent future murders and/or crimes because it actually increases the likelihood of committing murder. It doesn’t prevent future murders because it would upset the family and friends of the person who was executed. For example, if someone was executed by the death penalty and it was someones family member, then the person who lost their loved one by the execution would most likely commit murder in anger. If that person was executed the next family member would get angry and so on. The cycle would never end and would have more murders. There is no final proof that the death penalty is a better deterrent than other options. Not having the death penalty would be better because it could save many lives. For example, United States a country that uses the death penalty has a higher murder rate than Europe or Canada which are countries that do not use the death penalty. To get a little specific, the states in the United States that do not use the death penalty have a lower murder rate than the states that do.
Gray, James P. "Essay: Facing Facts On The Death Penalty." Loyola Of Los Angeles Law Review 44.3 (2011): S255-S264. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
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...
While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that capital punishment is being used for vengeance or as a deterrent. Capital punishment has been used worldwide, not only by the governments to instill fear, but to show that there are repercussions to ones actions. From the time we are born, we are taught to learn the difference between right and wrong. It is ingrained in our brains, what happens to people that do bad things? Capital punishment is renowned for being the worst thing that could be brought amongst ones life.
There are many reasons why capital punishment is a good thing, and should be enforced and used more. First off, capital punishment is a good thing because it deters crime. For example, in the 1960s while the number of executions was decreasing, the homicide rate was increasing. As execution started to increase, statistics show that the homicide rate slowly decreased or stayed the same, but it did not increase. Fear of death deters people from committing crime. The...
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.
Have you ever thought about if the person next to you is a killer or a rapist? If he is, what would you want from the government if he had killed someone you know? He should receive the death penalty! Murderers and rapists should be punished for the crimes they have committed and should pay the price for their wrongdoing. Having the death penalty in our society is humane; it helps the overcrowding problem and gives relief to the families of the victims, who had to go through an event such as murder. Without the death penalty, criminals would be more inclined to commit additional violent crimes. Fear of death discourages people from committing crimes. If capital punishment were carried out more it would prove to be the crime preventative it was partly intended to be. Most criminals would think twice before committing murder if they knew their own lives were at stake. Use of the death penalty as intended by law could actually reduce the number of violent murders by eliminating some of the repeat offenders. The death penalty has always been and continues to be a very controversial issue. People on both sides of the issue argue endlessly to gain further support for their movements. While opponents of capital punishment are quick to point out that the United States remains one of the few Western countries that continue to support the death penalty. The deterrent effect of any punishment depends on how quickly the punishment is applied.
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.