In Defense of Capital Punishment

1287 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Summary of Human Dignity

In Defense of Capital Punishment

There are some words that often return when we defend the death penalty: justice and human dignity. These words also constitute a foundation for that which is called democracy and civilization. These two realities can also be regarded as two bearing pillars in the defense of capital punishment.

Justice is a highly regarded word in society and in politics, but within the judicial system and that which concerns crime and punishment, justice has, both as a word and as a conception, ended up existing in the shadows. People want to lift forth this truth in the light, since justice should be the foundation within the legal system. When the death penalty is discussed the aspect of justice should be allowed in the foreground first and foremost.

Man has an inviolable dignity and, therefore, deserves the highest respect. Human dignity and respect, not foremost for the one who hurts his fellowman but for the victims of crimes and his relatives, is something that should be brought forth considerably more than today, and especially in connection with the death penalty. But the prerequisite for that is that sympathy and solidarity with the victim should increase in society. In order to rightly value the death penalty it is necessary to have empathy and understanding for all the victims and their relatives.

The capital punishment makes up one link on the way to a safer society. The capital punishment means that some heinous criminals never again will walk on the streets, and that makes the society a somewhat safer place.

Murderers and violent criminals will always exist in society and the death penalty will only lower the number of criminals marginally. It is inevitable, however, that every violent criminal less that exists in a society will mean a safer society. A prison term on the other hand would mean that there would always be a pressing dark cloud of worries over a society.

Also, in prisons the interns and personnel would feel safer with the death penalty. It is not unusual with conflicts, violence and murder in prison. Some interns who have been sentenced to long prison terms or lifetime would probably deter from cruel acts of violence and murder if they knew that it could lead to the death penalty. Today, on the other hand, he who has been sentenced to lifetime in prison cannot be sentenced too much more and, therefore, he would probably neither be deterred from committing further crimes.

Show More
Related

  • Recreating Prehistoric Life: Jurassic Park

    696 Words  | 2 Pages

    ... in our criticism. Crichton and Spielberg made a greater effort to get things right than anyone before them. Perhaps, they did misspell “stegosaurus” in the Embryonic Storage Room, but who is paying attention? Since the release of Jurassic Park, a new interest has emerged into the field of paleontology. Without this new interest, fascinating breakthroughs such as evo devo might have remained a castle in the Mesozoic sky.

    Read More

  • The Death Penalty in the United States

    1557 Words  | 4 Pages

    The sentence for murder appears to be getting less severe as time passes. Crime is rampant and out of control. There must be a system to prevent these people from committing such grievous acts (Balanced Politics). Time spent in jail often is a means of stopping a few; but much more is needed in order to prevent recidivism. In some court cases a wide range of punishments that would cut the rate of crime should be available to prosecutors and judges (Balanced Politics). A judge could sentence a person to life in prison; but the criminal justice system may set this very same person free after ten or fifteen years in prison. Why must we put our trust in a judicial system that will let these vicious offenders out in society after ten or fifteen years in prison (Death Penalty). The judge may impose a life sent...

    Read More

  • Analysis of Immanuel Kant´s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

    926 Words  | 2 Pages

    The concept Kant is displaying in his work is the universal maxim. He believes in the idea of the will of every human being to be a part of the universal law. Individuals are to reflect upon their action by looking at the motivating principle behind their action. The question is would the motivation of my action be universally accepted or rejected? Kant is saying that we should look at the motivating principle behind our actions and compare that to how it would be seen on a universal level. Then ask, would we want another person to act with the same motivating principle? In all we are to act in a manner that the will of our action be a maxim that becomes a universal law.

    Read More

  • Is the Death Penalty Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

    1249 Words  | 3 Pages

    Violent criminals will always exist in society and the death penalty will only decrease these numbers gradually, however every violent criminal that does not exists in society makes society a safer place. Placing these criminals in prison with a life sentence does not deter them from committing another crime. This just enables them to plan, plot and proceed with the next murder, escape or worse.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty In The Criminal Justice System

    2527 Words  | 6 Pages

    Since the year, 1976 one thousand- three hundred and ninety-two individuals have been sentenced to capital-punishment. The term capital punishment has been coined to kindly identify the death penalty or execution. The death penalty has remained a major controversy for quite some time. Today, one of the most debated issues within the criminal justice system is the issue of whether or not the death penalty should be seen as being an ethical procedure. Prior to the year 1972, it had been seen as being legal. In 1972, the Supreme Court evaluated the terms of the death penalty and ruled it as being unconstitutional (History of the Death Penalty). The right or execution violated citizens eighth and fourteenth amendment rights. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court contradicted themselves in 1976 and reinstated the death penalty. Today, it is up to the states discretion rather or not they are going to permit capital-punishment. Through this essay the reader will read the pros and cons of the death penalty and the writers standpoint in regards to the capital

    Read More

  • Business Ethics Case Study: Hacking Into Harvard

    523 Words  | 2 Pages

    Kant believed that morality has to be something free and freely controlled by the person taking the moral action excluding consequences because consequences are not controllable. Morality is freely chosen and legislated universal law that any rational being could construct and all rational beings who want to be moral do

    Read More

  • Morality And Morality Analysis

    867 Words  | 2 Pages

    Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.

    Read More

  • The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?

    1942 Words  | 4 Pages

    This essay will discuss the various views regarding the death penalty and its current status in the United States. It can be said that almost all of us are familiar with the saying “An eye for an eye” and for most people that is how the death penalty is viewed. In most people’s eyes, if a person is convicted without a doubt of murdering someone, it is believed that he/she should pay for that crime with their own life. However, there are some people who believe that enforcing the death penalty makes society look just as guilty as the convicted. Still, the death penalty diminishes the possibility of a convicted murderer to achieve the freedom needed to commit a crime again; it can also be seen as a violation of the convicted person’s rights going against the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    Read More

  • Philosophy: Kant´s Free Will

    1223 Words  | 3 Pages

    Moral Law seems to continually cause a problem for Kant’s theories, but there does not doubt that moral law does exist. There is a sense of what is “morally” right and wrong within each human. In yet another text Kant finally addresses a humans ability to willfully do wrong. In Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone we witness a rather sharp turn in Kant’s perspective (Cherkasova 368). In this Kant speaks with urgency about the freedom of good or evil; he begins to associate freedom with the “absolute spontaneity of arbitrary will” (Religion). It no longer seems that Kant is saying that moral law is determined, and once again Kant’s argument makes sense. At times it feels like there is a lot of contradiction in his writing, but in reality it is through interpretation where the contradiction and confusion arises.

    Read More

  • morality

    1114 Words  | 3 Pages

    Kant’s theory argues that the moral worth of an action is to be judged not by its consequences but the nature of the maxim or principle that motivated the action. He states the right actions are not necessarily those with favorable consequences but those performed with accordance with correct maxims. Kant also defines the correct maxims are the ones that can serve as universal laws (79). According to Kant there is a formula for the “Unversal Law,” First we wold have to figure out the general principle we would be actin on. We can use his example of borrowing money knowing you can pay it back. In order for us to universalize the maxim we must think if everyone were in “X” situation they would all do “Y.” So if everyone needed to borrow money knowing they could not pay it back they would then like and make a false promise. So this cold not be a universal law because if everyone started making false promises a promise would mean nothing and would only be using someone as a means. Kant also discusses categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative; categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and independent of any personal motive or law “to act for the state of duty”(81). One objection to Kants theory would be that duties that resul...

    Read More

  • Finding the Balance of Love and Freedom in Jane Eyre

    1343 Words  | 3 Pages

    Although written during both the Victorian and Gothic time period, Jane Eyre draws upon many revolutionary influences that ultimately enabled it to become one of the most successful books of all time. Jane Eyre is merely a hybrid of a Victorian and Gothic novel, infusing a share of dark allusions with overzealous romanticism. The primitive cultures of the Victorian period reflect high ethical standards, an extreme respect for family life, and devotional qualities to God, all in which the novel portrays. Yet, to merely label Jane Eyre as a Victorian novel would be misleading. While the characteristics of a Gothic no...

    Read More

  • Death Penalty Position Paper

    924 Words  | 2 Pages

    “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.

    Read More

  • Capital Punishment Justified

    1152 Words  | 3 Pages

    "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...

    Read More

  • The Death Penalty and Violations of Human Rights

    1742 Words  | 4 Pages

    Ethics and morality are the founding reasons for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, leading to the highly contentious nature of the debate. When heinous crimes are com...

    Read More

  • Categorical Imperative Essay

    998 Words  | 2 Pages

    While Kant’s position of putting others before oneself and thinking of the consequences of one’s actions creates a noble and righteous view of morality. However, it does have a few concerning loopholes. For example, if someone were to try to carry out an action that would cause no harm to others if everyone else also did it, this would obviously pass under the universal law. However, if the person had to do something considered immoral in order to be able to carry out the action, it would still pass the requirements necessary for an action to be considered to fall under the universal law, as this action has no effect on the primary action that passed under the law. For example, if someone decided that they were going to drive their car to work and hit anyone who stood in the way, this would still fit within the universal law as killing these people would have no effect on getting to work. In addition, if this were established as a universal law and everyone did it, it would not affect the first person from getting to work. Therefore, it fits the universal law. Obviously, murder would not heed to the categorical imperative in any other way other than through this loophole. Kant makes the mistake of assuming that everything will work out through his categorical imperative, but conflicts such as this cause that to be impossible, making it an extensive flaw in his reasoning

    Read More

More about In Defense of Capital Punishment

Open Document