Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
opinion on capital punishment?
capital punishment solutions
opinion on capital punishment?
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: opinion on capital punishment?
The Death Penalty is a Just and Proper Punishment
The idea of putting another human to death is hard to completely fathom. The physical
mechanics involved in the act of execution are easy to grasp, but the emotions involved
in carrying out a death sentence on another person, regardless of how much they deserve
it, is beyond my own understanding. I know it must be painful, dehumanizing, and
sickening. However, this act is sometimes necessary and it is our responsibility as
a society to see that it is done.
Opponents of capital punishment have basically four arguments.
The first is that there is a possibility of error. However, the chance
that there might be an error is separate from the issue of whether the
death penalty can be justified or not. If an error does occur, and an
innocent person is executed, then the problem lies in the court system,
not in the death penalty. Furthermore, most activities in our world, in
which humans are involved, possess a possibility of injury or death.
Construction, sports, driving, and air travel all offer the possibility of
accidental death even though the highest levels of precautions are taken.
These activities continue to take place, and continue to occasionally take
human lives, because we have all decided, as a society, that the
advantages outweigh the unintended loss. We have also decided that the
advantages of having dangerous murderers removed from our society outweigh
the losses of the offender.
The second argument against capital punishment is that it is
unfair in its administration. Statistics show that the poor and
minorities are more likely to receive the death penalty. Once again, this
is a separate issue.
It can't be disputed sadly, the rich are more likely to get off with a
lesser sentence, and this bias is wrong. However, this is yet another
problem of our current court system. The racial and economic bias is not
a valid argument against the death penalty. It is an argument against the
courts and their unfair system of sentencing.
The third argument is actually a rebuttal to a claim made by some
supporters of the death penalty. The claim is that the threat of capital
punishment reduces violent crimes. Opponents of the death penalty do not
agree and have a valid argument when they say, "The claims that capital
punishment reduces violent crime is inconclusive and certainly not
proven."
I am not refuting this accusation. In fact, statistics show that the
death penalty neither lowers or raises the incidence of violent crimes.
what they feel morally justified to do. The moral aspects of killing a person would be the
Imagine a close friend, or someone you know has been brutally murdered and raped and the only suspect the police has is you but you know you’re innocent. The judge sentences you to life in prison plus death by lethal injection. Suddenly everything changes. You aren’t that person people came to know and love. You’re a cold blooded killer to society. Now, imagine sitting on death row for ten years and your time is finally up. You walk down the hall to meet your death face to face. Your future awaits you in a room where you’re held down with long leather straps to a hard metal table and a needle is being pushed into your arm, slowly killing you for a crime you did not commit. You sat in a cement room for 10 years. No one to talk to, no family, no friends. The only thing you have is hatred and anger building up in you for so long you forget what its like to love, to laugh, to feel any emotion at all and now you feel this poison flowing through your body, the only other feeling you’ve had for 10 years. You feel the injection shooting through your veins, setting your insides on fire more and more with every pulse of your still beating heart. Everything goes quiet, the room fades to black, your heart slows and f...
The history of the death penalty is a long and brutal one. From the stoning and crucifixion killings
Capital punishment causes the death of someone because that person killed someone else, yet only murderers suffer such a fate. Rapists do not endure rape, thieves do not have their possessions robbed, and those convicted of assault do not undergo a similar assault.
Since the early settlers first stepped foot on what is now the United States of America, capital punishment has been reserved as a form of punishment for the people who have committed some of society’s most heinous crimes. Recently, support of capital punishment has begun to erode due to the advancements of DNA technology and groups, such as the Innocence Project. Capital punishment, however, remains to be an appropriate form of punishment for someone convicted of capital crimes, and may be effective in deterring such offenses.
This essay will discuss the various views regarding the death penalty and its current status in the United States. It can be said that almost all of us are familiar with the saying “An eye for an eye” and for most people that is how the death penalty is viewed. In most people’s eyes, if a person is convicted without a doubt of murdering someone, it is believed that he/she should pay for that crime with their own life. However, there are some people who believe that enforcing the death penalty makes society look just as guilty as the convicted. Still, the death penalty diminishes the possibility of a convicted murderer to achieve the freedom needed to commit a crime again; it can also be seen as a violation of the convicted person’s rights going against the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The death penalty is a highly controversial and hotly debated topic. The death penalty is completely obsolete in western English speaking countries; the only exception the United States of America. Capital Punishment is only used in cases of treason and in murder 1. Supporters of the death penalty believe that putting a killer to death gives the family of the murdered knowledge that justice was served. The opposition to the death penalty believes that the punishment is too “final”: it offers no possibility of rehabilitation. Both sides, however, recognize the need for a change in the justice system regarding capital punishment. The common issue is finding a punishment which is harsh enough to deter crime but still offers the chance of rehabilitation. The standard form of execution is use of lethal injection, in which the convicted is bound to a chair and injected with sodium thiopental to cause unconsciousness, pancuronium bromide to induce paralysis, and potassium chloride to stop the heart. Texas is the state most liberal in their use of the death penalty, with 34% of the national total since 1976. The death penalty has been a part of civilization for all of man’s existence, starting in Ancient Greece and Egypt and continuing on through today.
The difference between a medical procedure and an execution is explained by J. Jeffrey Andrews, the secretary of the American Bar Association. Andrews said, "Patients should never confuse the death chamber with the operating room, lethal doses of execution drugs with anesthetic drugs, or the executioner with the anesthesiologist…” (Pappas, 2014, Web). There will never be a single handly perfect way to carry out executions. However, even with the lack of perfection a humane answer can be found and carried out. L. Kay Gillespie, author of “Inside the Death Chamber”, a book exploring the idea of executions, said, “Perhaps the future of capital punishment, is there is one, will develop methods of executions based on computers, space technology, or laser technologies.” A closer look at the topic by lawmakers and judges who hold the power to change the injustice would provide even the lowest, violent criminals with the last thing they have left, their inalienable rights. He goes on to say, “Perhaps even our perspectives and definitions of what is humane will change to accommodate our technologies. In a society where our realities are based on definitions, there are unlimited possibilities on the reality of capital punishment” (Gillespie, 2013, p.66-69). However, it is not just lawmakers responsibility to bring this topic to a solution. Our
Life is the most wonderful gift that God gives us. He also gives us the
Legal professor Ernest van den Haag believes that the death penalty is the good as in a punishment for terrible crimes that are committed. On the other hand professor of philosophy Hugo Adam Bedau thinks that the death penalty is not appropriate, do to it takes the lives of people that can not afford a good defense. I would have to agree with Ernest van den Haag. When a person commits a serious crime like murder, the only fitting penalty is death. "Maldistribution inheres no more in capital punishment than in any other punishment." (Haag 274) Fear of the death penalty can be a good deterrent. Many people also try to abolish the death penalty by talking about the suffering a convicted murderer has to go through, but what about what the victim had to go through. Further, if we get rid of the death penalty it will show that we are not willing to impose our punishments on people who brake our laws.
The death penalty has always been and continues to be a very controversial issue. People on both sides of the issue argue endlessly to gain further support for their movements. While opponents of capital punishment are quick to point out that the United States remains one of the few Western countries that continue to support the death penalty, Americans are also more likely to encounter violent crime than citizens of other countries (Brownlee 31). Justice mandates that criminals receive what they deserve. The punishment must fit the crime. If a burglar deserves imprisonment, then a murderer deserves death (Winters 168). The death penalty is necessary and the only punishment suitable for those convicted of capital offenses. Seventy-five percent of Americans support the death penalty, according to Turner, because it provides a deterrent to some would-be murderers and it also provides for moral and legal justice (83). "Deterrence is a theory: It asks what the effects are of a punishment (does it reduce the crime rate?) and makes testable predictions (punishment reduces the crime rate compared to what it would be without the credible threat of punishment)", (Van Den Haag 29). The deterrent effect of any punishment depends on how quickly the punishment is applied (Workshop 16). Executions are so rare and delayed for so long in comparison th the number of capitol offenses committed that statistical correlations cannot be expected (Winters 104). The number of potential murders that are deterred by the threat of a death penalty may never be known, just as it may never be known how many lives are saved with it. However, it is known that the death penalty does definitely deter those who are executed. Life in prison without the possibility of parole is the alternative to execution presented by those that consider words to be equal to reality. Nothing prevents the people sentenced in this way from being paroled under later laws or later court rulings. Furthermore, nothing prevents them from escaping or killing again while in prison. After all, if they have already received the maximum sentence available, they have nothing to lose. For example, in 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court banished the death penalty. Like other states, Texas commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment. After being r...
The Death Penalty Is Righteous Do you believe that people should get the death penalty? People should get the death penalty because Americans are just wasting our money on criminals who aren't learning their lesson. People should get the death penalty because they have far too many privileges in prison that people actually want to go to. People should get the death penalty because if there is a bigger consequence for their actions, there wouldn't be as many people in jail.
I believe that under certain circumstances that capital punishment should be allowed because if someone is going to commit mass murder they should pay with the ultimate human right which is of their life. This topic has been widely thought of in the world with a few philosophers really encompassing my views. Those are the views of Ernest Van Den Haag and Bruce Fein. Philosophers who oppose our views are such like Justice William Brennan and Hugo Adam Bedau. I will prove my point using the ideas of deterrence and morality of the issue of capital punishment. If the government would show that if you kill someone there will be a consequence for their actions and that the consequence would be equal to what they have done. The population will see that it isn’t worth taking another humans life. If we were to kill people that are committing these mass killings of innocent people there would not be as many criminals around. Therefore the streets would be a place people wouldn’t be afraid of anymore.
The heaviest punishment towards convicts is death penalty in law. It means to atone for an offense is dead. Of course, it will not execute for every criminal. Death penalty is only for felons. For example, a people who murdered someone would not get the death penalty. The death penalty is for murders who related to the smuggling of aliens or committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting. Sometimes, however, the felons also can avoid the death because some countries (or actually states) don’t allow death penalty. Then, what decision would the convict get? It is a life sentence, which means the prisoner should be in a prison until he or she dies. However, it is not good idea to keep felons. Death penalty should be allowed and get more active because life sentence is costly, unsafe, and insincere for a victim and the family.
Capital Punishment is a controversial topic discussed in today's society. Capital punishment is often not as harsh in other countries as we may call harsh in our country. There is a heated debate on whether states should be able to kill other humans or not. But if we shall consider that other countries often have more deadly death penalties than we do. People that are in favor of the death penalty say that it saves money by not paying for housing in a maximum prison but what about our smaller countries that abide by the rule of the capital punishment. If one were to look at the issues behind capital punishment in an anthropological prospective than one would see that in some cases no one would assume that capital punishment here in the U.S. is bad. Now those opposed say that it is against the constitution, and is cruel and unusual punishment for humans to be put to his or her death. I believe that the death penalty is against the constitution and is cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is cruel because you cannot punish anyone worse than by killing them. It is an unusual punishment because it does not happen very often and it should not happen at all. Therefore, I think that capital punishment should be abolished, everywhere.