Every country or state has laws that are meant to govern its citizens. The laws are made following the societal moral obligations and the human rights consideration. At the societal level, the members of the society also have norms and rules that govern the behaviors of its members. However, due to the erroneous nature of human beings, instances of going against the societal, or public moral and legal expectation are always common thus the need for a way to tame some of the human behaviors. In trying to make the citizens law-abiding, different states have placed different punishment measures for various grades of crimes.
However, one punishment that has raised many concerns: the religious concerns, legal battles, and moral concerns with every
…show more content…
The church or the religious sects, on the other hand, have always believed that it is only God who gives life to every living thing thus; He alone can take it away. This point is evident in the Catholic’s definition of capital punishment under which death penalty falls. The Roman Catholic uses the neuter form of the adjective ‘capitale instead of caput’ substantively to denote death and banishment imposed on a human being by authority (Brugger ,12). To them, the idea of capital punishment in the form of a death penalty is a great antiquity and primal concepts of human race. Most religions are often against imposing a server punishment of human being, as they believe in the forgiveness of sins. This point of view, however, is open to criticism …show more content…
It is meant to show that he/she who murders do not deserve to see the next day; avenging death-for-death (McClellan
,144). The legal measure, which is a form of revenge, acts as a social solidarity against the lawbreakers. In fact, the penalty is a private revenge for the murder victims. The revenge motive, however, does not match the moral teaching in any society as it brews hatred and more revenge and the cycle continues. This I suppose is also one of the reasons murder cases never ends despite the presence of the death penalty in most States.
Conversely, the death penalty can be ruled to be rightful for the capital offense, as it has been posted with the proponents of the penalty. First, committing a felony is a matter of free will since no one is often compelled to commit armed robbery, murder, or rape. Some do it for Surname;
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.
Proponents of capital punishment believe that killing criminals is a moral and ethical way of punishing them. They feel there is justification in taking the life of a certain criminal, when in fact that justification is nothing more than revenge. They also feel that the death penalty deters crime, although there have been no conclusive studies confirming that viewpoint (Bedau).
ABSTRACT: In this paper I present a moral argument against capital punishment that does not depend upon the claim that all killing is immoral. The argument is directed primarily against non-philosophers in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Oddly, the moral argument against capital punishment has not been effective in the United States despite the biblical injunction against killing. Religious supporters of the death penalty often invoke a presumed distinction between ‘killing’ and ‘murdering’ and avow that God forbade the latter but not the former. Self-defense and just wars are cited as cases of morally justified killing. Accepting these premises, I point out that when cases of justified killing in self-defense are altered to include an element of delay, disarming and premeditation, they too become murder. Since the death penalty clearly involves the elements of delay, disarming and premeditation, I conclude that the death penalty is murder in the biblical sense and ought to be abolished in any God-fearing (or otherwise moral) society.
The use of the death penalty shows us that revenge is honored in our society. The cost of incarcerating an offender for their lifetime is much less than the cost of executing that same offender. In spite of the lower cost to imprison, we continue to execute offenders. To me, this mindset shows a system that considers the death of another to be a victory.
Narration: crime does not mean that others considering the same crime will not still go about it. So the question we then look at is, is the death penalty meant as revenge or justice.
Travelling around the world, this paper presents the various religious perspectives evidenced in recent actions taken regarding the death penalty.
Eliminating the death penalty as a method of punishment will only allow criminals to wreak havoc and chaotic in our community without the fear of death. When a person commits a crime, they are disrupting the order in the community. Justice help restore the disruption of that order. The Death penalty restore social order and give the states authority to maximized retribution for the victims. When the state does not have the authority to maximum retribution, the public may put the law in their own hands. Although, execution may be cruel and inhumane, it is nothing compared to the fate of many victims in the hand of the murderers. The purpose of the death penalty is to provide retribution for the victims and their families. However, retribution is not revenge. “Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime” (Pojman, 2004).
man from killing again then so be it. I don't know if it is immoral
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.
There are no precise rules about punctuation (Fowler lays out some general advice (as best he can under the complex circumstances of English prose (he points out, for example, that we possess only four stops (the comma, the semicolon, the colon and the period (the question mark and exclamation point are not, strictly speaking, stops; they are indicators of tone (oddly enough, the Greeks employed the semicolon for their question mark (it produces a strange sensation to read a Greek sentence which is a straightforward question: Why weepest thou; (instead of Why weepest thou? (and, of course, there are parentheses (which are surely a kind of punctuation making this whole matter much more complicated by having to count up the left-handed parentheses
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.”
The use of capital punishment has progressively become problematic since the very first day it was put into practice. There are many great arguments both for and against capital punishment, but in my opinion the benefits of capital punishment outweigh any possible negative aspects. Although capital punishment sounds extreme, sometimes it is necessary when people execute extreme crimes. I would like to argue that in certain situations the use of capital punishment is morally acceptable.
In the ending, criminals must think about consequences before they kill someone. To give a killer the death penalty would reassure the family of victims as well as the problems.
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.
The death penalty has been an ongoing debate for many years. Each side of the issue presents valid arguments to explain why someone should be either for or against the subject. One side of the argument says deterrence, the other side says there’s a likelihood of putting to death an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder itself. Crime is an unmistakable part of our society, and it is safe to say that everyone would concur that something must be done about it. The majority of people know the risk of crime to their lives, but the subject lies in the techniques and actions in which it should be dealt with. As the past tells us, capital punishment, whose meaning is “the use of death as a legally sanctioned punishment,” is a suitable and proficient means of deterring crime. Today, the death penalty resides as an effective method of punishment for murder and other atrocious crimes.