Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social impact of the death penalty on society
Ethical issues of the death penalty
Death penalty and ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social impact of the death penalty on society
Senator for Utah Orrin Hatch once said, “Capital punishment is our society’s recognition of the sanctity of human life,” (Brainy Quote). While the arguments for both sides of the debate over the morality of the death penalty are vast, the bottom line is that the death penalty does not disregard human life, but rather it reveres it, as Hatch said. Morality is defined as, “The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct,” (The Free Dictionary). One who seeks to protect a person who has committed a heinous crime such as murder is arguably not in accords with what is right and wrong. Therefore, although killing is generally accepted as being wrong, the death penalty is sometimes the only solution to bring justice to a crime; thus, in these cases, it is the moral thing to do.
Opponents of the death penalty will argue that it is immoral to kill any human being, regardless of whether or not they have committed a crime. A primary explanation for this is that with the death penalty, it is possible for an innocent person to be wrongly convicted and killed as a result. The loss of an innocent life is a tragedy, and in a case where the loss was due to capital punishment, it is evident that the form of justice consequently did the opposite of what it aims to do: protect further innocent lives from being taken. This scenario also results in complications outside of the victim and their family. If a person is executed for a crime they did not commit, not only was another life ended for no justifiable reason, but in addition, valuable time and resources were wasted on the wrong person, and the real culprit is still out in the world, continuing to threaten society. Opponents of such punishment may also advocate that the met...
... middle of paper ...
...ason other than their own lust for human blood and suffering, their life should be ended in return.
Humans have a moral obligation to rid the world of people who kill or commit other heinous crimes. Killing is an evil act, but when it is committed, the only way to achieve justice is by dealing the killer the same hand they dealt an innocent. Human rights are violated by not eliminating the people who take someone else’s, because allowing someone who has murdered in cold blood to continue living is just as disrespectful to the person killed as the murderer taking their life in the first place. By eliminating these people, society is actually acknowledging the sanctity of human life. The death penalty is the moral solution because protecting a killer holds the same immorality as killing a person directly, and if we defend a killer, what makes us any better than them?
The moral reality in an argument for capital punishment is that they know the difference between the death penalty and what happens when it is actually put into place from the court of law. In the United States there are more people sitting in prison on death row than actually being executed at time of sentence. When the death penalty is not carried out, then families of the murdered victim recognize the value of the victim’s life is insignificant and the person that has committed the crime has the greater life of being able to continue living while in prison on death row. Many people argue for the death penalty with the case that is someone commits a violent crime, they should be put to death. Should anyone argue that if you take a human life, they will be able to live in prison and serve time and live, not to die by lethal injection or any of the other forms of capital punishment immediately? The argument for anyone in prison to not be punished and put to death is a crime within itself.
Is the death penalty fair? Is it humane? Does it deter crime? The answers to these questions vary depending on who answers them. The issue of capital punishment raises many debates. These same questions troubled Americans just as much in the day of the Salem witch trials as now in the say of Timothy McVeigh. During the time of the Salem witchcraft trials they had the same problem as present society faces. Twenty innocent people had been sentenced to death. It was too late to reverse the decision and the jurors admitted to their mistake. The execution of innocent people is still a major concern for American citizens today.
It's dark and cold, the fortress-like building has cinderblock walls, and death lurks around the perimeter. A man will die tonight. Under the blue sky, small black birds gather outside the fence that surrounds the building to flaunt their freedom. There is a gothic feel to the scene, as though you have stepped into a horror movie.
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).
Since colonial times, approximately 13,000 people have been put to death using the death penalty? How do we know if any of those people were actually guilty? The Bills Of Rights outlines our rights as Americans in the United States. According to the 8th Amendment, there should be no excessive bail or fines nor there any kind of cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. Well that being said does that not go against what the death penalty is and what our 8th amendment stands for? How do you stand? In this paper I will list the reasons on why we should get rid of the death penalty which could really change how you feel on the how you stand.
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.
It is unnerving to think that everyday some of the most unspeakable murders and killings take place just under the noses of the authorities and normal people. The killers responsible for these crimes are threats to society and deserve capital punishment. The death penalty is an acceptable and fair method of punishment because it serves justice, provides victim’s families with closure, and increases safety.
One of the most repetitive and controversial topics discussed in the criminal justice system, is the death penalty. Capital punishment has been a part of our nation’s history since the creation of our constitution. In fact, as of January 1st, 2016, 2,943 inmates were awaiting their fate on death row (Death Penalty Information Center). Throughout my life, I have always been a strong advocate for the death penalty. During the majority of my undergraduate degree, I was a fierce supporter of capital punishment when discussing the topic in classes. However, throughout many criminal justice courses, I found myself in the minority, regarding the abolishment of the death penalty. While debating this topic, I would always find myself sympathetic to the victims and their families, as one should be, wanting those who were responsible for heinous crimes to
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
The death penalty or some prefer to call it capital punishment has been around since 1608. During the foundation of our country there were twelve death – eligible crimes of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and they were as follows: idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, murder, manslaughter, poisoning, bestiality, sodomy, adultery, man stealing , false witness in capital cases and conspiracy & rebellion. While some are absolutely for it and some are absolutely against it there is one factor that comes into play on both sides of the argument and that factor is religion. Many people will state that there is or should be a line between church and state however religion has and will always play a major role in ones conceptual thinking as to what is right and as to what is wrong what is moral and what is immoral. Despite the fact that people would rather think or rationalize without involving religion is nearly impossible. “By virtually any definition, religion involves a central concern with making sense of life and death. The American legal system, rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics, routinely confronts issues that test our basic assumptions about the meaning and sanctity of life and about the role of the State in shaping and sustaining such meanings” (Young,1992).
Special attention will be given to the topics of deterrence, the families of the victims, and the increased population that has been occurring within our prisons. Any possible objections will also be assessed, including criticism regarding the monetary value of the use of the death penalty and opposition to this practice due to its characteristics, which some identify as hypocritical and inhumane. My goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is not to use this practice extensively, but rather to reduce the use to a minimum and use it only when necessary. Above all else, capital punishment should be morally justified in extreme situations because it has a deterrent effect. Many criminals seem to be threatened more by the thought of death rather than a long-term prison sentence.
“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.
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...
The death penalty has been an ongoing debate for many years. Each side of the issue presents valid arguments to explain why someone should be either for or against the subject. One side of the argument says deterrence, the other side says there’s a likelihood of putting to death an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder itself. Crime is an unmistakable part of our society, and it is safe to say that everyone would concur that something must be done about it. The majority of people know the risk of crime to their lives, but the subject lies in the techniques and actions in which it should be dealt with.
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.