Steven Hayes, one of the two men accused in the brutal home invasion in Connecticut in 2007, was sentenced to death in 2010. If you’re unfamiliar with the case, he along with Joshua Komisarjevsky, broke into a home, kidnapped the mother with the hope of her retrieving funds from the family's bank account, eventually killed the mother and two young daughters after having sexually assaulted the mother and the younger daughter, beat the husband with a baseball bat (attempted murder), and set the house on fire immediately prior to fleeing the scene. Most people have absolutely no qualms with the notion that these inhumane beasts are likely to be executed for their crimes. Yet I can assure you that among "enlightened" individuals, the idea of favoring …show more content…
As such, the possibility that a single innocent person might die is sufficient to abolish this practice. Here is my rebuttal: This is certainly a very serious concern that can nonetheless be addressed by ensuring that the legal criteria that need to be met for imposing the death penalty are made much more stringent. For example, if your DNA is found on the murdered and raped bodies of four children then it is unlikely that you are an innocent defendant. In other words, we can make the triggering criteria for capital punishment such that it becomes next-to-impossible for innocent people to be put to …show more content…
Hence, there are always mitigating factors that can be used to "explain" any crime. Child abuse is oftentimes used as a mitigating factor. Apparently, having been abused or neglected as a child might explain why you end up stalking a mother, killing and raping her, molesting her young daughter, killing the two daughters, beating the husband with a baseball bat, and setting the house on fire. Needless to say, millions of children are abused every year, and yet few end up becoming sadistic rapists and killers. As a matter of fact, several infamous serial killers have testified to the fact that their childhoods were bereft of any abuse. Incidentally, humans have free will. Hence, it is difficult to argue that an individual's past, irrespective of how difficult it might have been, forced him into a life of heinous criminality. This would be tantamount to environmental determinism, which is ironic given that those who believe in such determinism abhor so-called genetic
How does the author argue that the inevitable executing of the innocent is not a reason to abolish the death penalty?
The nurturing of individuals plays a role in the making of killers, as 94% of serial killers had experienced some form of abuse as children and 42% have suffered severe physical abuse (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2010). A child abuse is a determining factor, in which supports the idea that serial killers and psychopath, are influenced significantly by nurture (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2011). In most cases social, cultural and physiological determinants all play a role in influencing serial killers to grow into a mass murderer. It is important that physiological and social determinants can be identified, so they could be altered for the purpose of preventing the number of crime.
The question of whether or not man is predetermined at birth to lead a life of crime is a question that has been debated for decades. Are serial killers born with the lust for murder, or are their desires developed through years of abuse and torment? Many believe it is impossible for an innocent child to be born with the capability to commit a horrible act such as murder. But at the same time, how could we have corrupted society so much as to turn an innocent child into a homicidal maniac? Forensic psychologists have picked apart the minds of serial killers to find an answer as to what forces them to commit such perverse acts. Their ultimate goal is to learn how to catch a serial killer before he commits his first crime.
Bob McCulloch, Missouri state prosecutor, argues that this type of punishment is very appropriate. He also points out that the death penalty punishment is not applicable to the type of murder that we daily see on the television, or read about in the newspapers, but to those that are “particularly horrendous,” such as multiple murders, murders for hire, and so on (qtd in “The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty”). He even goes on to describe one murder case that he worked on, as an example of a crime worthy of the death penalty. It’s the case of a man who gutted his girlfriend and her infant, and then cut off the baby’s head. A lot of death penalty supporters, sixty five percent to be more precise, believe in the Biblical saying “an eye for an eye,” arguing that the punishment really should fit the crime. They also believe that the family of a victim has the right to some type of a closure, and that the death penalty is the best way to provide them with one. John McAdams, Marquette University’s professor of political science, argues that by executing a murderer one cannot go wrong: “If you execute a murderer and it stops other murders, ...
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).
...shment: A Defense,” an article in The Death Penalty: Pro and Con written by Ernest Van Den Haag , shares this “Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers”(3)
Before addressing the dilemma of capital punishment and its relation to Kant's "Respect for Persons" ethics, it is important to be informed of the background of this dilemma. A topic of growing and heated debate in today's society, capital punishment involves many more aspects than the average citizen may think. This controversial practice, which is also commonly referred to as the death penalty, is defined as the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. Today, the federal government and thirty-two of the fifty states permit execution for first-degree murder. (Death Penalty Information Center) A majority of executions are carried out through lethal injection, but electrocution, hanging, the gas chamber, and firing squads are still legal in a few states. In states that allow for more than one option, death row inmates are allowed to choose their execution given qualifying circumstances. Under specific circumstances and in certain jurisdictions, treason, kidnapping, aggravated rape, felony murder, and murder while unde...
man from killing again then so be it. I don't know if it is immoral
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).
Capital Punishment I recently read an article from the ACLU, written by Adam Bedau. It explained, quite eloquently, that for society to execute a murderer made society no better than the murderer himself. He said, “The executioner is no better than the criminal.” I was impressed by this moral stance, but I was surprised to read that he failed to apply this logic consistently. For example, the he went on to argue that life imprisonment would be a more appropriate penalty for murder than death. Using this ACLU logic, it appears that for our society to lock someone in a room against his will and not free him for a considerable length of time makes our society no better than the everyday kidnapper. But if an individual locked another up against his will, wouldn’t the ACLU view this as kidnapping. Being from the Methodist faith I found this argument somewhat difficult. For in the Bible there is a scripture that states, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” I presume the ACLU would agree that beatings or torture are also unacceptable forms of punishment for crimes. They seem to be inhumane. Yet in Eastern cultures, if one steals something, they lose a finger or two and sometimes an entire hand depending on the severity of the crime. This seems to be reason enough not to steal, as in these cultures there is a very low theft rate. Maybe the ACLU would find a monetary fine a more appropriate punishment? For society to take money away from someone against his will without giving him any tangible goods in return would make society a thief. Of course, the Bedau also explains that capital punishment brutalizes society, leading to even more murders. If we, as a society, adopt this no-punishment position, it logically follows that there would be less crime. Once criminals realized that no matter what they did, no fellow citizen would lift a finger to stop them, why, they’d just be so overcome with the generosity of their neighbors that they’d naturally be inclined to become upstanding, productive citizens.
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.”
(Fact) Sending innocent people to the death penalty is wrong judges and lawyers make mistakes as well as regular people. Sending an innocent person to the death penalty only because they don’t have enough evidence or they have a gut feeling that they did the crime is wrong to do to a living life. There is a chance they did nothing wrong to be killed over something they haven’t done. Every person has the right to live whether its working, being free, in jail or in prison, but no one should have their life taken from them, even if they have done something wrong, that’s just giving them the easy way out of their punishment.
We kill people to show them killing is wrong. The death penalty does not punish people for killing but for murdering someone. Murder is "the unlawful, malicious, or permitted killing of one human being by another" (Carmical 1). The slogan should be ?We execute people to show people that murder is wrong.? The death penalty is racist, it punishes the poor, it causes the innocent to die, it is not a deterrent against violent crime, and it is cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is wrong and it should be abolished.
To begin with, numerous reasons for why a child acts in the manner he exhibits and why he continues to exert such dangerous and even fatal schemes. Recent research shows that factors ranging from inherited personality traits to chemical imbalances and damages suffered in the womb can increase the odds that a child will become violent (Johnson 234). Experts argue that no one is predestined to a life of crime. They believe that influences such as repeated abuse, extreme neglect, poverty, media violence, and easy access to guns play the major role in molding children into criminals. The father of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer wonders, "If potential for evil is in the blood that some of us pass on to our children" (Seifert 23).
The question of whether or not man is predetermined at birth to lead a life of crime is a question that has been debated for decades. Serial killers are made not born; it has been demonstrated that a man 's initial years are the most vital years. A youngster 's initial couple of years is a period of experimentation, a period to make sense of things for themselves, a period to set up the bits of the riddle. Like a newborn child, the mental health is reliant on its environment. A youthful youngster 's mind resembles a wipe; it gathers data through perception. The surroundings of a serial killer as a little child can enormously impact the way he or she will go about his or her life and his or her style of murdering. Certain experience, for example, youngster misuse, divorce, liquor misuse, tyke disregard, as well as medication misuse, can be negative to the advancement of a little child. Numerous serial killers were illegitimate kids. Due to their childhood and early backgrounds, serial killers swing to crazy murdering frenzies.