Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of punishment
The death penalty introduction abstract
Effects of punishment on behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The importance of punishment
Catholics and Capital Punishment
Catholic opponents of the death penalty sometimes seem to lose sight of the primary purpose of punishment. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense." If I commit a serious offense against society, I bring about a disorder, and the point of punishment is to reestablish the lost order. If I willingly accept my punishment, "it assumes the value of expiation." And it can protect you from future crimes I might commit. The Catechism thus gives three purposes of punishment: defending public order, protecting people, and moral change in the criminal.
Paragraph 2267 reminds us that "the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty" but then adds, "if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." This appears to make a secondary purpose of punishment override the primary. That appearance has led to some fuzzy thinking. The correct meaning must be that the primary aim of punishment can be achieved short of exacting the death penalty. A single means-say, life imprisonment-restores the order lost by the crime, protects society against future crimes of the incarcerated, and gives the prisoner a chance to repent.
The paragraph should not be read as making the protection of society trump everything else. Why? Because imprisonment protects society against future possible crimes. But the criminal cannot be punished for what he might do; he is in prison because of what he has already done. If life imprisonment is to serve the primary purpose of punishment, it must, like the death penalty, be primarily justified as sufficiently "redressing the disorder introduced by the offense."
Paragraph 2267 is concerned exclusively with a secondary purpose of punishment: protecting society. Unless, as suggested, "protecting society" be taken to comprehend "redressing the disorder." (Paragraph 2266 distinguishes "defending public order" from "protecting people's safety.") One sometimes hears in the clamor to end the death penalty that retribution is no longer the aim of punishment. But if there is no cause for retribution, punishment is unjust: All that would excuse it is the fear that someone might in the future harm us and that solitude might better his soul.
Enthusiasm sometimes obscures the fact that the Catechism "does not exclude recourse to the death penalty." However rare such recourse might be, even if it were only once in a millennium, it would have to be justified.
...prevent harm and set peace for society. So by looking at this theory, we can prevent those who are being deprived of their rights in an unconstitutional manner and are of no harm to society, thus preventing them from uneccessary punishment.
' The notion that punishment is needed as an example asserts that the punishment for murder, or the punishment any crime for that matter, should be employed as a deterrent and to inspire fear that will prevent others from fulfilling the said crime in the future. This illustrates a depressing and gloomy view of human nature, as being corrupt at its core and that fear remains the only thing that prevents us from committing evil acts. Rather, I believe that laws and the punishments associated with the infringement of laws are an agreement between a citizen and the society they live in about what is appropriate and agreeable behavior that protects the basic rights of all citizens and holds all citizens as equal in front of the law. Thus, if someone kills another person and the circumstances of the crime are not within the previously established laws, then the person should be held responsible regardless of whether one would kill that person if they could help it or
In the article “The Penalty of Death”, written by H. L. Mencken, utilitarian principles are used to cover up for a system that wants results. All of the reasons that Mencken gives as justifications do not give concrete evidence of why the death penalty should continue as a means of punishment. The article states, “Any lesser penalty leaves them feeling that the criminal has got the better of society...” This statement alone demonstrates how he believes the death penalty brings justice and satisfaction to the people. Mencken creates the points he makes in his article in order to give society a way to make the death penalty seem less intrusive on moral principles and more of a necessary act.
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).
Gelernter argues that we do sentence for 6 reasons. We sentence for retribution, deterrence, incapability, rehabilitation, reparation, or denunciation. We do not have the death penalty for retribution because if we did we would have the family of the deceased kill the murder. The death penalty is not use to deter crime, because if that was the case we would do public executions. There are other means for incapability, so that is not the function of the death penalty. The death penalty has no sense of rehabilitation because your killing the guilty, and there are no reparations. The death penalty functions as a public proclamation that murder is a crime that will not be tolerable. Gelernter argues that murder requires this communal
He argues that the only punishment possibly equivalent to death, the amount of inflicted harm, is death. Death is qualitatively different from any kind of life, so no substitute could be found that would equal death(6). The down side of the retributive system of just can be observed in our modern practices of zero tolerance laws. These laws have placed values of some wrongdoings so high that punishment for relatively minor offenses can see an offender detained for substantially longer than arguably needed to repay the harm they caused. Placing a grater demand on our prison facilities and creates a circle of offense and
Enforcing death penalty in itself deters people from getting suitable opportunity to ensure that rehabilitation is enhanced. It is necessary to note that many individuals who have been charged with capital punishment have been emotionally and psychologically unstable. Enforcing the death penalty therefore denies them room for rehabilitation. There is a need to advance towards rehabilitation as opposed to advocating for execution. If individuals know that upon committing a capital offence they will be sentenced to death, they will hardly consider reform programs. It is also crucial to note that there is no concrete evidence on advantages derived from the death penalty. The truth is that it only aids in perpetuating death and chains of violence. Prisons should serve as centers to rehabilitate violent fellows, and then return them to the community as fully reformed and responsible individuals. It is therefore not justifiable that a death penalty should be enforced to them at all
Travelling around the world, this paper presents the various religious perspectives evidenced in recent actions taken regarding the death penalty.
The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. According to Hugo A. Bedau, the writer of “The Death Penalty in America”, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The death penalty has been used since ancient times for a variety of offenses. The Bible says that death should be done to anyone who commits murder, larceny, rapes, and burglary. It appears that public debate on the death penalty has changed over the years and is still changing, but there are still some out there who are for the death penalty and will continue to believe that it’s a good punishment. I always hear a lot of people say “an eye for an eye.” Most people feel strongly that if a criminal took the life of another, their’s should be taken away as well, and I don’t see how the death penalty could deter anyone from committing crimes if your going to do the crime then at that moment your not thinking about being on death role. I don’t think they should be put to death they should just sit in a cell for the rest of their life and think about how they destroy other families. A change in views and attitudes about the death penalty are likely attributed to results from social science research. The changes suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment in America (Radelet and Borg, 2000).
Death penalty might sound like the immoral thing to do; however it’s effective. When a criminal is sentence to the death sentence, it spreads fear between criminals who committed a similar crime. It also, decreases the amount of criminals that were thinking about committing that particular crime. In the article, “The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives” Muhlhausen explains to us how death penalty sa...
During the spring semester I read Evangelium Vitae: The Gospel of Life. Paragraphs 27 and 56 of this encyclical prompted a discussion of the death penalty with other students. Their first reaction was that the Pope was against it and that he was saying that the penalty has no justification. There was general resistance to the suggestion that while the Pope's attitude toward the death penalty is, to put it mildly, unfavorable, he did not flat out say that it was immoral, wrong, without justification.
Though the death penalty is considered barbaric, it is not. With those who have ones that have died viciously to the ones who died young there is such a thing as karma. The death penalty allows those people who committed the crime to be punished equally. Therefore, I agree with the reason for having the death penalty. It is only fair that the criminal be punished for his wrong doings. The bible does say, “An eye for an eye.” When there is equal punishment and safety it makes people worry less. It allows them to live out their lives in peace, and to not look back on something bad that has happened to them.
Above all else, capital punishment should be morally justified in extreme situations because it will have a deterrent effect. Many criminals seem to be threatened more by the thought of death rather than a long-term prison sentence. If a criminal is sentenced to twenty-five years in prison then he/she knows that all the necessities needed to survive for those twenty-five years, including food, water, shelter, and even a possible chance of release will be pro...
Capital punishment goes against almost every religion. Isolated passages of religious scripture have been quoted in support of the death penalty, almost all religious groups in the United States regard executions as immoral. There is no credible evidence that capital punishment deters crime from the streets in America. Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime anymore than long prison sentences. Moreover, states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. Executions are carried out at staggering cost to taxpayer.The funds spent for execution should be used to target the issue of killing and find solutions to help communities unite to demonstrate a more peaceful environment. Recent CNN reported how studies done have found that the death penalty criminal litigation, costs taxpayers far more than seeking life without parole. (CNN, 2015) The states spends millions of dollars to put away death row inmates when the funds could be used to help channel society in tune with how to become more positive and getting help to those who need
"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...