More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast the arguments for and against capital punishment
Arguments For Capital Punishment
Arguments for and against the death penalty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Death Penalty
1) Two major claims: death penalty serves as a deterrent and death penalty is morally justified because murderers can’t live and you have a right to kill them.
2) The premises and conclusions that the author of the letter outlines are as follows:
Death Penalty serves as a deterrent.
a. Criminals fear the death penalty.
b. Fear of the death penalty deters criminals from carrying guns when engaged in a criminal activity.
c. Therefore, death penalty serves as a deterrent.
Death Penalty is morally justified.
a. Criminals who murder lose the right to life and deserve to die.
b. In war, you have a right to kill because you are threatened.
c. By being a murderer, you wage war on the citizens.
d. It is morally justified to kill criminals who have lost their right to life and whom we have a right to kill.
e. Therefore, death penalty is morally justified.
3) Though the claim that death penalty serves as a deterrent is valid, it is controversial in its soundness. It is sound that criminals fear the death penalty. Indeed, death penalty is fearful, as it is irrevocable and takes away the life and future of the criminal sentenced to it. However, the evidences supporting the second premise that is the core function of the claim for the deterrence argument is too excessive. In the letter, the author first presents his own experience to prove that the fear of death penalty deters offenders from carrying a gun. However, using an experience as a proof for deterrence for such a complex and serious punishment as the death penalty is extreme. While supporters of the author may respond with the author’s credibility as a police officer for thirty years, personal experience and insight can’t be extrapolated with possibilities of bias...
... middle of paper ...
... adequate support for the controversy that all killing is morally wrong and that valuing the innocent over the guilty is devaluing human dignity and humanity itself. Moreover, if not all killing is morally wrong, and some quite acceptable, then it stands that death penalty may also be acceptable. In this way, the abolitionist contradicts himself or herself by asserting equal human dignity and worth between the innocent and the convicted that ultimately led to devaluing one human being (the innocent) to another (the guilty). As such, it would only be rational and just to offer aid to the innocent than “to those who are guilty of squandering aid” (Mappes, Zembaty, and DeGrazia 141).
Works Cited
Mappes, Thomas A., Jane S. Zembaty, and David DeGrazia. "The Death Penalty." Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 105-53. Print.
Randa, Laura E. “Society’s Final Solution: A History and Discussion of the Death Penalty.” (1997). Rpt.in History of the Death Penalty. Ed. Michael H. Reggio. University Press of America, Inc., 1997. 1-6 Print.
There is a common knowledge that capital punishment would prevent people from committing crime. But until now, there has not been any actual statistics or scientific researches that prove the relationship between the capital punishment and the rate of crimes. According to Jack Weil, “criminals, who believe that their chances of going to jail are slight, will in all probability also assume that their chances of being executed are equally slight. Their attitude that crime pays will in no way be altered” (3). Most people commit a crime when they are affected by the influence of drugs, alcohol or even overwhelmed emotions, so they cannot think logically about they would pay back by their lives. Also, when criminal plan to do their crime, they prepare and expect to escape instead of being caught. Some people believe that the threat of severe punishment could bring the crime rates down and that capital punishment is the ultimate crime deterrent. However, in fact, the rate of ...
...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)
The opposing side who disagrees against the death penalty argues against several factors. One argument against the death penalty is that a man has no right to choose death as a punishment for another. Every human has the gift of life granted from the Creator and to take that away even as a punishment is immoral and no different than murder itself ( Sinclair and Sinclair 20-25). Life is a human right; however, one who does not respect the life of others does not deserve to have this right of living. By murdering and taking another’s life, the murderer has forfeited his own right to live ( Capital Punishment Is a Just Consequence for Those Who Choose Evil 2). With the gift of life, the Creator has also granted His beings with the freewill of choosing between good and evil. It is a man’s right to ...
There are many pros to the death penalty. Some claim that there is a preventative effect on potential murderers, although there is a lot of debate about this and just about every other argument for or against capital punishment. Another is the idea of incapacitation. Truthfully, why should someone have the right to live if they have taken that right from another person? The purpose why this writer supports capital punishment is because in observing victims’ families and their grief over murdered loved ones. This writer believes anyone who murders should be put to death. One reason for this is because people should not have the right to live after they have killed a fellow human being. The death penalty is a topic dealing with ethics, a set of moral principles or values. This issue is constantly filled with mix feelings and attitudes which the writer will attempt to present in the following paragraphs.
Narration: Opponents of the death penalty believe it is an ineffective way to stop crime and that there are better ways to punish crime and keep society safe.
...et our society on the rightful track. Our government needs to lead by example and stop. There is just no real justification for killing any person.
In this paper I will argue for the moral permissibility of the death penalty and I am fairly confident that when the case for capital punishment is made properly, its appeal to logic and morality is compelling. The practice of the death penalty is no longer as wide-spread as it used to be throughout the world; in fact, though the death penalty was nearly universal in past societies, only 71 countries world-wide still officially permit the death penalty (www.infoplease.com); the U.S. being among them. Since colonial times, executions have taken place in America, making them a part of its history and tradition. Given the pervasiveness of the death penalty in the past, why do so few countries use the death penalty, and why are there American states that no longer sanction its use? Is there a moral wrong involved in the taking of a criminal’s life? Of course the usual arguments will be brought up, but beyond the primary discourse most people do not go deeper than their “gut feeling” or personal convictions. When you hear about how a family was ruthlessly slaughtered by a psychopathic serial killer most minds instantly feel that this man should be punished, but to what extent? Would it be just to put this person to death?
“The case Against the Death Penalty.” aclu.org. American Civil Liberties Union, 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013
Guernsey, J. B. (2010). Death penalty: fair solution or moral failure. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner Publishing Group, Inc. Retrieved February 8, 2011 from http://books.google.com/books?id=38slHSsFFrgC&pg=PA125&dq=death+penalty+in+other+countries&hl=en&ei=F6dQTZHLBsm_tgfD7rHBCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=death%20penalty%20in%20other%20countries&f=false
Pasquerella, Lynn. “The Death Penalty in the United States.” The Study Circle Resource Center of Topsfield Foundation. July 1991. Topsfield Foundation. 03 Feb 2011. Web.
Americans have argued over the death penalty since the early days of our country. In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes. As of year ended in 1999, in Texas, the state had executed 496 prisoners since 1930. The laws in the United States have change drastically in regards to capital punishment. An example of this would be the years from 1968 to 1977 due to the nearly 10 year moratorium. 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. While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that is capital punishment being used for vengeance or as a deterrent.
The Ethics of Capital Punishment Ethics is "the study of standards of right and wrong. " philosophy dealing with moral conduct, duty and judgement. ' [1] Capital Punishment is the death penalty for a crime. The word "capital" in "capital punishment" refers to a person's head as in the past. people were often executed by severing their heads from their bodies.
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...
Schonebaum, Stephen E. "A Swifter Death Penalty Would Be An Effective Deterrent." Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? San Diego: David L. Bender; Greenhaven Press Inc. 1998. 18.