More handpicked essays just for you.
ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY ON capital punishment
ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY ON capital punishment
Argumentative text on the death penalty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
1. In "The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense", why does the author believe maldistribution of punishment in itself does not make the death penalty unjust? The author believes the maldistribution of any punishment is not relevant to its justice – The guilty are punished, not one’s race, economic, or social status. 2. How does the author argue that the inevitable executing of the innocent is not a reason to abolish the death penalty? The author is arguing that the execution of a few innocent does not outweigh the larger amount of the guilty who are sentenced to death. 3. What does the author mean by "The degradation is self-inflicted"? The author means that the murderer brought degradation upon himself. He has dehumanized himself, and cannot remain
The Punishment Imperative, a book based on the transition from a time when punishment was thought to be necessarily harsh to a time where reform in the prion system is needed, explains the reasons why the grand social experiment of severe punishment did not work. The authors of the book, Todd R. Clear and Natasha A. Frost, strongly argue that the previous mindset of harsh punishment has been replaced due to political shifts, firsthand evidence, and spending issues within the government. Clear and Frost successfully assert their argument throughout the book using quantitative and qualitative information spanning from government policies to the reintegration of previous convicts into society.
“How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” According to DPIC (Death penalty information center), there are one thousand –four hundred thirty- eight executions in the United States since 1976. Currently, there are Two thousand –nine hundred –five inmates on death row, and the average length of time on death row is about fifteen years in the United States. The Capital punishment, which appears on the surface to the fitting conclusion to the life of a murder, in fact, a complicated issue that produces no clear resolution.; However, the article states it’s justice. In the article “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” an author David B. Muhlhausen illustrates a story of Earl Ringo , Jr, brutal murder’s execution on September ,10,
Is it not absurd, that the laws, which detest and punish homicide, should, in order to prevent murder, publicly commit murder themselves” (Source B). He is saying that the laws that are supposed to protect them are mostly committing public murder in execution. To continue, he also stated, “It is better to prevent crimes than to punish them” (Source B). He is saying that they should prevent crimes instead, if they want to conduct men to the maximum of happiness. A guillotine might be an execution device, but it didn’t hurt people as bad as the execution methods used before.
The one thing about this argument, though, if it were valid, it would not show that capital punishment is never proportionate and just, but only that it is very rarely so. The implication of this argument is not that we ought to do away with capital punishment altogether, nor that we ought to restrict it to those cases of murder where the murderer had warned the victim weeks or months in advance of what he was going to do, but we ought to reexamine the procedure of carrying out this kind of
Have you ever wonder if there is any good justification for the policy of punishing people for breaking laws? Boonin’s definition of punishment consists of Authorized, Reprobative, Retributive, Intentional Harm. The problem of punishment incorporates three different answers. Consequentialism, which makes punishment beneficial (will do good for the people later in the future). Retributivism punishment is a fitting response to crime. As well as, the option of ‘other’ punishment can be a source of education, or expressive matter. Moreover a fourth answer can be an alternative called restitution, punishment is not necessary for social order. In The Problem of Punishment, by David Boonin deeply studies a wide range of theories that explain why the institutions is morally permitted to punish criminals. Boonin argues that no state , no-one succeeds with punishment. To make his argument stronger, he endorses abolitionism, the view
Retrieved April 12, 2005, from Civilrights.org Web site: http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/cj/. Kansal, T. (2005). The 'Secondary'. In M. Mauer (Ed. Racial disparity in sentencing: A review of the literature.
According, to Professor van den Haag, distribution of punishment is not the issue and is irrelevant in administering capital punishment. If the person is guilty then he should be punished, consequently the real unfairness is when a person is let out lightly after committing a heinous crime. He argues that punishment is not administered on the race but it is administered on an individual.
In the essay, Death and Justice, by Edward I. Koch makes his argument of why he supports capital punishment by the examination of his opposition’s arguments that are most frequently heard. Koch claims the death penalty is just and supports his claims by rebutting the arguments. Koch believes that capital punishment is a mean to uphold justice, until another form of punishments are found as a better solution. Other punishment would be inadequate and therefore unjust for the crimes that deprive someone else life.. Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw committed murders before the murder, they were executed for. If theses individuals had received the death penalty in the beginning, than maybe an 18 year old woman, and two teenagers could still
...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)
This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.
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
From an equal justice perspective, “all people should be treated equally before the law and equality may best be achieved through individual discretion in the justice process” (Siegel and Worrall, 2013, page 20). Through this perspective, all criminals who commit the same crime would be equally subjected to the same form of punishment. Thus extralegal factors, which include the person’s gender, age, race or previous criminal activity, would not be considered by the judge, when they sentence the severity of the punishment. This limits the injustice within the system and any unfair treatment an offender a may receive while in the system. It also sets clear and rigid guidelines for judges to uphold during sentencing.
Race plays a large factor in showing how you are viewed in society. Although there is no longer slavery and separate water fountains, we can still see areas of our daily life clearly affected by race. One of these areas is the criminal justice system and that is because the color of your skin can easily yet unfairly determine if you receive the death penalty. The controversial evidence showing that race is a large contributing factor in death penalty cases shows that there needs to be a change in the system and action taken against these biases. The issue is wide spread throughout the United States and can be proven with statistics. There is a higher probability that a black on white crime will result in a death penalty verdict than black on black or white on black. Race will ultimately define the final ruling of the sentence which is evident in the racial disparities of the death penalty. The amount of blacks on death row can easily be seen considering the majority of the prison population is black or blacks that committed the same crime as a white person but got a harsher sentence. The biases and prejudices that are in our society relating to race come to light when a jury is selected to determine a death sentence. So what is the relationship between race and the death penalty? This paper is set out to prove findings of different race related sentences and why blacks are sentenced to death more for a black on white crime. Looking at the racial divide we once had in early American history and statistics from sources and data regarding the number of blacks on death row/executed, we can expose the issues with this racial dilemma.
When someone is legally convicted of a capital crime, it is possible for their punishment to be execution. The Death Penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. Some believe the act of punishing a criminal by execution is completely inhumane, while others believe it is a necessary practice needed to keep our society safe. In this annotated bibliography, there are six articles that each argue on whether or not the death penalty should be illegalized. Some authors argue that the death penalty should be illegal because it does not act as a deterrent, and it negatively effects the victim’s families. Other scholar’s state that the death penalty should stay legalized because there is an overcrowding in prisons and it saves innocent’s lives. Whether or not the death penalty should be
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.