Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Should the death penalty be legalized
Ethical issues with the death penalty
Ethics in capital punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Words in the American language mean much more than the dictionary definition that is often associated to the word. Dignity, as defined by Merriam Webster, can mean as a formal reserve or seriousness of manner, appearance, or language. Dignity can also mean the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed. The word stems from the Latin dignitāt-em for “merit” and “worth”. The word would surface in Old French as digneté and later in Modern French as dignité. George Santayana, a famed philosopher once said “Our dignity is not in what we do, but what we understand.” Dignity is based on wholesome and honorable principles that do not co-exist with capital punishment. The death penalty is incompatible with the idea of dignity because it …show more content…
The death penalty ultimately is taking an individual’s life as a justification for that person committing a heinous crime. As a society, it is noted that anything that is dignified is worthy of respect or considered honorable. If one is to take a look at one of the most honorable and respected documents in the United States, The Declaration of Independence; it is evident that dignity and the death penalty are incoherent with one another. The Declaration of Independence states, that every citizen of the U.S. has the rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (National Archives) If the United States promises the individual the right to life and this right is considered “inalienable”, the death penalty simply can not be dignified. It is almost as if the federal government chooses to ignore the lack of respect that for the human body when someone is sentenced to death. An eye for eye treatment?, it isn't always the most appropriate consequence for matters such as sentencing someone who murders. If one is to also look at the highest law of the land, The United States Constitution, specifically The Bill of Rights; one can see that the idea of
The death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment which is strictly prohibited by the 8th amendment. William J. Brennan, Jr., JD, the Former US Supreme Court Justice, stated "Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment; therefore the principle inherent in the Clause that prohibits pointless infliction of excessive punishment when less severe punishment can adequately achieve the same purposes invalidates the punishment." Gregg v Georgia [1976]. After committing a crime all criminals will face some form of punishment after the action. As the honorable William J. Brennan stated above, if you can still bring justice to the crimes committed why would one go the extra mile to take somebody’s life. This makes the death penalty look spiteful and cruel. Even though criminals should be fully held for their actions and are not worthy of supporting in a jail cell, these arguments do serve a purpose. It is against America’s ethics as a country that follows the Constitution to continue these executions and makes the US look hypocritical and inhumane when trying to be the role model for the
From the time the first colonists arrived in the late Sixteen Hundreds Pennsylvania executions were carried out by public hanging (Cor.state.pa.us, 2014). In Eighteen Forty Three, Pennsylvania became the first state to abolish public hangings. From Eighteen Thirty Four until Nineteen Fifty Three each county was responsible for carrying out private hanging of criminal within the wall of the county jail.
Dignity is a timeless desire and will always be chased by the human race. Compared to fame and revenge, dignity is a healthier ambition. Aristotle once said, “Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them” (How to regain your dignity, 2013).
The Death Penalty is cruel and unusual, however we still give constitutional acceptance to the federal system. It presents “a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those other barbaric practices, executions have no place in civilized society.”(1) It is wrong to advocate the the use of the capital punishment when numerous options are available to those in need of rehabilitation. Three of the most prominent problems with continuing this archaic method of retribution are innocents conflicted with inaccurate verdicts, the death penalty being a state-sanctioned killing that only continues the evolution of violence, and the nation's taxes going towards the purchase of fatal narcotics used in the killings of fellow human beings.
The United States should use the death penalty because it is economical and continues to be a deterrent for potential offenders. Take into consideration that the Constitution states that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can not be taken away without due process. The offenders committing the brutal, heinous crimes have not applied this right to the victims of their crimes. Why should the government take their rights into consideration when the victims rights mean so little to them? People always put forth the idea that killing is wrong in any sense, yet they don’t want to punish the people that commit the crimes.
Oftentimes when one hears the term Physician Assisted Suicide (hereafter PAS) the words cruel and unethical come to mind. On October 27, 1997 Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, this act would allow terminally ill Oregon residents to end their lives through a voluntary self-administered dose of lethal medications that are prescribed by a physician (Death with Dignity Act) . This has become a vital, medical and social movement. Having a choice should mean that a terminally ill patient is entitled to the choice to pursue PAS. If people have the right to refuse lifesaving treatments, such as chemo and palliative care, then the choice of ending life with PAS should be a choice that is allowed.
In 1972 the United States Senate held the first National Hearing on Death with Dignity. The outcome of the hearing “Death with Dignity: An Inquiry into Related Public Issues” was an overwhelming annoyance caused by the use of the term, “medical miracle”. They felt as though it was ironic, the process of dying was only delayed and extended by a medical miracle and takes away from the quality of their life (Dowbiggin, 2003). Because of the present annoyance about using “medical miracles” as an excuse to ignore the idea of Death with Dignity, not much was accomplished at this hearing, besides arguing about a simple phrase. There was no improvement or movement on the actual topic of Death with Dignity.
One of the most widely debated and criticized methods of punishment in the United States is the Death Penalty. The Death Penalty is an issue that has the United States quite divided. While there are many supporters of it, there is also a large amount of opposition. Currently, there are thirty-three states in which the death penalty is legal and seventeen states that have abolished it according to the Death Penalty Information Center. There is no question that killing another person is the most atrocious criminal act that one can commit. I am not sure why, but it seems that the United States government is being hypocritical when it says that capital punishment is acceptable because a criminal did murder an innocent victim, and therefore should be killed (Philips, 2013). This is rule is known as the "eye-for-an-eye, and tooth-for-a- tooth theory." Of course, if we used this system all the time, there would be no need for laws. A second argument that some people use to support capital punishment is that the fear of being given the death penalty is going to stop criminals from murdering. How many criminals would murder in the first place, even in a state where there is no capital punishment, if they thought there was a chance of getting caught? Most murderers feel that they have a plan to get away with murder (Philips, 2013). Unfortunately, most are right. In response to this I believe that the United States Bill of Rights in the Constitution prohibits cruel an unusual punishment. There is nothing more cruel or unusual than taking someone’s life.
Opponents of the death penalty will site several reasons to abolish death penalty such as the usage of death penalty as a deterrent, the cost of death penalty vs life in prison, unfairness in the application of death sentencing, and possible mistakes. Opponents would much rather focus on the rights’ of criminals than the victims and their families.
First the death penalty is against people human right of the constitution. To me I feel that the death penalty strips people of their eighth amendment right. This amendment protects people from excessive fine and cruel punishment (Marshfield, 2016). It is crazy to think that the pilgrims fled the oppression of England, set up rights for their people, and America goes and sets up the death penalty. If we keep it up like this, before you know it we as the citizens are going to be forced to house soldiers or we
Almost all nations in the world either have the death sentence or have had it at one time. It was used in most cases to punish those who broke the laws or standards that were expected of them. Since the death penalty wastes tax money, is inhumane, and is largely unnecessary it should be abolished in every state across the United States. The use of the death penalty puts the United States in the same category as countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia which are two of the world’s worst human rights violators (Friedman 34). Lauri Friedman quotes, “Executions simply inject more violence into an already hostile American society.”
The death penalty is going against human rights. A right to live their life without having the state take their life away. “The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice.
America’s million dollar question is should capital punishment be allowed? Americans have been blindsided with decisions about the death penalty; in the past many have agreed with the punishment due to lack of knowledge on the issue. Today, information on capital punishment is everywhere. I agreed with most of America on the issue; it should be allowed because of its many beneficial reasons. I believe in “just desert,” that is criminals should receive the same punishment that they used against their victims. If you murder someone intentionally you should receive the death penalty. Finally, society feels relief as the capital punishment protects their own human dignity that are at risk if the accused remains alive; society dignity fails if they don’t punish the accused for they become participators of the crime. Therefore, the occurrence of anarchy is avoided with this punishment as it will serve as deterrence as well. Some philosophers such as Kant and Pojman have agreed with my view while others like Marshall and Bedau have challenged it.
The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a moral able to control his/her own destiny for good or bad behavior. I believe it is an asset to society. The death penalty should not be abolished because it will reduce crime rate, it will save us and the government money, and It helps our society.
I believe that there is a standard when it comes to morality. The basics of that standard includes knowing that murder, rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, larceny, and perjury are wrong. What does it mean for something to be wrong? It means that the majority of human beings can argue that those crimes hurt rather than benefit individuals or a society as a whole. The death penalty can be implemented for any of the crimes listed above when a judge believes that the crime is serious enough. However, the death penalty uses one of the crimes itself; murder. If the government uses the death penalty as a punishment in order to show that murder is wrong, how can they murder and assume it is right? Opponents of this statement could argue that the government has a judicial system in order to uphold the moral code within our society, and that the death penalty honors human dignity by allowing the defendant to control his own destiny. However, I argue that the death penalty objectifies and takes away the humanity of the defendant.