Death Penalty Murder, someone on this earth is murdered every 60 seconds. This is an intolerable number. Those members of society who are responsible for these heinous crimes should be stopped immediately; The death penalty is one such solution. In the 1600’s the death penalty first began when “William the Conqueror” allowed those who had committed murder to be hung for their crimes. Due to crime growing exponentially drastic measures must be taken to put a stop to these unforgivable acts. The death penalty will effectively remove the offenders of this law, and scare others into compliance.
Crime is an inevitable plague affecting the United States and precautions have been taken to attempt to relive the American people of crime. The death
…show more content…
A large part in the justification of the death penalty is based on this same idea. Some crimes are so serious that the only logical solution is to pay the deed back in full, by giving one’s own life. Families of victims may become bitter and angry about the outcome and feel as if the death penalty is a fair and well deserved punishment to the violators of the law. These revengeful desires are nothing short of expected from the average person. Death penalty outcome is decided by a jury and is not handled lightly and is only used under the extreme conditions previously mentioned. The constitution slightly touches on the death penalty by expressing that someone being able to take the life of another fellow human they infringe on the basic rights of life to all other …show more content…
Consequences for being wrongly accused can very from a minor punishment to the incorrect use of the death penalty;very few of these mistakes have been made. Yet some people rationalize and conclude that these small risks are enough to completely rule out the use of the death penalty. Although some families and friends of victims want the extreme punishment, some families believe the process make it more difficult to move past the issue (Death Penalty Can Prolong Suffering For Victims). Murder is one of the reasons that the death penalty is used and the friends and family of the victim believe it is just as bad for the courts to decide that murder should be committed again to gain “justice’. These people do not want others to kill for them because they see the process as a crime of the same caliber committed against their friend or family member and they are not the reason the crime had to be committed. But do these small and seemingly insignificant measures truly outweigh the positivity the death penalty could have on defending against crime in the
There are over sixty offenses in the United States of America that can be punishable by receiving the death penalty (What is..., 1). However, many individuals believe that the death penalty is an inadequate source of punishment for any crime no matter how severe it is. The fact remains, however, that the death penalty is one of the most ideal forms of punishment. There are other individuals who agree with the idea that capital punishment is the best form of punishment. In fact, some of these individuals believe that this should be the only form of punishment.
The Death Penalty practice has always been a topic of major debate and ethical concern among citizens in society. The death penalty can be defined as the authorization to legally kill a person as punishment for committing a crime, this practice is also known as Capital Punishment. The purpose of creating a harsher punishment for criminals was to deter other people from committing atrocious crimes and it was also intended to serve as a way of incapacitation and retribution. In fact, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution are some of the basic concepts in the justice system, which explain the intentions of creating punishments as a consequence for illegal conduct. In the United States, the Congress approved the federal death penalty on June 25, 1790 and according to the Death Penalty Focus (DPF, 2011) organization website “there have been 343 executions, two of which were women”.
Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.
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.
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).
...ding, deterring crime, and saving tax dollars. The death penalty also ensures equal justice in America and ensures justice to those deceased in homicides. In the future, such issues can be resolved by keeping the death penalty: overcrowding in prisons will be less likely to happen, more criminals would be apprehended because of the plea bargain and crime rates will go down. This changed America by locking up more criminals in prison in these past two millenniums alone then altogether in America before while deterring crime due to convicts facing the chance of execution and being placed on death row. The death penalty also ensures the innocent who have suffered as a victim in a homicide have received their justice. With this being said, the death penalty works as a solution to the overcrowded prisons and overwhelming crime rates in the United States.
The Death Penalty should be discontinued to the families, human rights, and statistics. The families of the victim and the family of the one, who committed the crime, have no closure at all. The death penalty is killing a human for being convicted of a terrible crime one family may think its right but both suffer by their lost ones. “Although true closure is never really possible for the families, studies have shown that the continual process, along with the returning to court for many years, force families to confront the gruesome details of the crime many times over, making it impossible to get on with their lives. As difficult as that is the question is weather the victims needs are met effectively by killing someone else and causing another family grief and pain as well as adding to the cycle of violence.” (Progress) As both families do not want to see each other because they all have pain and hate for one another. They both relive the last memories of their loved one and they can’t help but cry and stare at the pictures they were once happy in. The families both have sadness when its their loved ones birthday. If the victim is married or have kids, their kids suffer and the husband/wife suffer as well. Although the families will never get there loved one back they still suffer on what had happen. Both families blame one another for having to take flowers, to their dead family member or visit their family member in a cemetery because of what happen. None of them is truly happy that they lost a family member. The families miss the person who seemed so happy, and also know that they are in a better place watching over them. Although the families aren’t happy about losing them, but are relieved to know that nothing else can hurt them. As one family feels sorry for the other family, there could be the family that doesn’t care what happens but wants everyone to suffer the way they are suffering about the tragic death of one family member.
To this date, Seven hundred and seventy two criminals in the U.S. alone have been
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.
I will accomplish this by first providing you with a brief history of the death penalty, then I will discuss grounds for justifying the death penalty, and finally I will dispute some of the popular arguments against the death penalty. To start off, I will discuss the history of the death penalty. The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. Death sentences were carried out by such means as crucifixion, boiling, beheading, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement. In the Tenth Century A.D., hanging became the usual method of execution in Britain.
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.”
Special attention will be given to the topics of deterrence, the families of the victims, and the increased population that has been occurring within our prisons. Any possible objections will also be assessed, including criticism regarding the monetary value of the use of the death penalty and opposition to this practice due to its characteristics, which some identify as hypocritical and inhumane. My goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is not to use this practice extensively, but rather to reduce the use to a minimum and use it only when necessary. Above all else, capital punishment should be morally justified in extreme situations because it has a deterrent effect. Many criminals seem to be threatened more by the thought of death rather than a long-term prison sentence.
Happiness is the goal of every human beings according to Aristotle, however what does happiness imply? It is in his attempt to define happiness and to find a way to attain it that Aristotle comes across the idea of virtue. It is thus necessary to explain the relationship between these two terms. I will start by defining the good and virtue and then clarify their close link with the argument of function, I will then go into more details in explaining the different ways in which they are closely related and finally I am going to give an account of the apparent contradiction in Book X which is a praise of the life of study.
Capital punishment has been a controversial topic in association to any person condemned to a serious committed crime. Capital punishment has been a historical punishment for any cruel crime. Issues associated to things such as the different methods used for execution in most states, waste of taxpayers’ money by performing execution, and how it does not serve as any form of justice have been a big argument that raise many eyebrows. Capital punishment is still an active form of deterrence in the United States. The history of the death penalty explains the different statistics about capital punishment and provides credible information as to why the form of punishment should be abolished by every state. It is believed
We often claim to have the best justice system in the world. But many countries believe that we are hypocrites because we criticize other countries human rights violations, yet still execute people for crime. According to Amnesty International, "Most executions took place in China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the USA -- in that order." ( Amnesty International) The death penalty should be declared unconstitutional because it is unfair and unjust, puts innocent people at risk, is expensive, and does not serve any important societal goal.