Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effect of rehabilitation on recidivism
Controversial death penalty
Wrongful convictions research paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The effect of rehabilitation on recidivism
There are many instances where a person is executed wrongfully, if this is the case, why do it at all? If a loved one is murdered, and their murderer was sentenced to death, if given the opportunity, would you spare them their life? I believe if you chose not to spare a human life, you chose wrong; I plan on arguing why this is morally wrong, and how it could be resolved.
Let’s analyze a scenario, a woman’s husband was murdered, she is certain that he is guilty of it because he confessed to the murder on the day he was going to be executed. The widow is then visited by the inmate’s wife, begging for forgiveness, and pleading for her to save her husband’s life. Should she save him from being executed or let him be put to death? I would argue that she should not let him die. It goes back to the old saying “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Though she may not see it right away because of feelings of fury and anger, this decision should be made carefully because it will affect the rest of her life. If she were to let him be put to death she may experience feelings of guilt for making the wrong decision, and letting the execution take place. As the saying goes, “an eye for an eye,” is not always the best solution.
Is this not what we try to teach our children as they grow into adulthood? How will she explain to her children that the person who murdered their father was executed, and although she could have prevented it, she did not? She went back on the lessons that people try to teach their children every day; to show compassion, have integrity, and live by good morals. What decisions you make now will have consequences in the end. Therefore, if you make a decision that is out of context, or immoral, it will forever be on your co...
... middle of paper ...
...at court room he thought to himself whether or not he was making the right decision. Unfortunately, his morals went out of the window, and he chose to do what he thought was best for him. Or did he? Any person with any moral value would struggle with such a choice. Hopefully, sooner than later he will try to correct the situation, but that will be determined by how bad his conscience is getting to him.
In a moral dilemma, someone always ends up paying a price. “What price you are willing to pay?” is the question, I am sure most people ask themselves each time they come across such a dilemma. I believe that you must remain true to yourself and do what is morally right for you, and your family; do what you know will not keep you up at night, in a sense. To make the wrong or immoral decision would be living a life in demise, which is like not living a life at all.
He could have turned the guilty party to the police, but he thought that it would end up hurting him.
...s can arise, but choices made with some understanding of the alternatives will usually work out better than leaving matters to chance. Also, if choices are made with the welfare of others in mind they are more likely to be the right ones. In particular, if there is a problem to solve that involves conflict between the law and conscience, the best solution may be to follow one's heart. If a decision is guided by conscience, no one can better tell one what to do, or how to do it. That is how Taylor is able to take her loved ones out of Arizona, even though it means breaking the law. She feels she can not do otherwise, and the law has to take second place. Someone else might not do the same. Everything depends on both conscience and courage, but not everyone has these qualities in the same degree. Nonetheless, if even breaking the law must sometimes be considered, it can best be done by an appeal to common humanity, conscience, and the heart. That is exactly what Taylor does here. But, like Taylor, people must be prepared to live with the possible consequences of their choices and actions. Knowing clearly, however, why one's choices are made, makes such risks or obstacles acceptable.
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...
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.
Capital punishment is an age-old practice. It has been used in civilizations for millennia, and will continue to be used for millennia to come. Whether used for the right or wrong reasons, capital punishment is unmistakable in its various forms. From hangings, to firing squads, to lethal injections, capital punishment and the associated proceeding have evolved over time. There have been many arguments against capital punishment, many of which still hold true. As capital punishment has evolved over time, however, many of the most valid arguments have been proven all but null. Capital punishment still has its ethical and moral concerns, but as it has evolved over time these concerns have not necessarily become less valid, but fewer in number when specifically addressing capital punishment. The proceedings that come hand-in-hand with capital punishment, however, have become increasingly more rigorous and controversial and are the main focus of most capital punishment concerns.
The Death Penalty practice has always been a topic of major debate and ethical concern among citizens in society. The death penalty can be defined as the authorization to legally kill a person as punishment for committing a crime, this practice is also known as Capital Punishment. The purpose of creating a harsher punishment for criminals was to deter other people from committing atrocious crimes and it was also intended to serve as a way of incapacitation and retribution. In fact, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution are some of the basic concepts in the justice system, which explain the intentions of creating punishments as a consequence for illegal conduct. In the United States, the Congress approved the federal death penalty on June 25, 1790 and according to the Death Penalty Focus (DPF, 2011) organization website “there have been 343 executions, two of which were women”.
The definition of freedom is without slavery, the state of being free rather than being enslaved and under physical restraint. The definition of justice is righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness and finally, Liberty is another word for independence. When it comes to the death penalty, people are killed every day and or put on death row because of a crime that they committed. To many the death penalty sounds cruel and heartless and to others people feel that it is better to kill a mass murderer for example then to keep them in prison for life. Therefore, how Americans define freedom, liberty and justice the death penalty is unjust.
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.
If an action would run a high risk of getting yourself killed, you might think twice before committing such an act. If taking one guilty life can save even one innocent life, it’s doing its job. In 1973, Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis that produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, seven lives were spared due to deterrence.3 Deterring a future killer from taking a life does not only save that victim's life, but it might also save the would be killer’s life. They might see how committing this one act would literally end their own life, and because the fear of death looms over everyone, they may refrain from doing
Is murder ever truly justified? Many people might proclaim the adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right,” while others would argue that the Old Testament Bible states, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Deuteronomy 19:21). Andre Dubus explores this moral dilemma in his short story, Killings. The protagonist, Matt Fowler, a good father and husband, decides to take revenge for his son's murder. Richard Strout is a bad man who murders his soon-to-be ex-wife's lover. These facts are complicated by the complexity of interpersonal relationships when seen through the lens of Matt’s conviction, Strout’s humanity, and ultimately Matt’s personal sacrifice on behalf of his loved ones. Though on the surface this tale might lead someone to think that Dubus is advocating for revenge, a closer look reveals that this a cautionary tale about the true cost of killing another human as readers are shown how completely Matt is altered by taking a life.
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...