The Controversy Surrounding The Death Penalty

Inviting the reader to explore diverse ways of thinking about the morality of capital punishment. First, foundationally the death penalty seems moral, the act of wrongdoing results in wrongdoing being done upon the actor. However, this is a very hypocritical and barbaric way of punishment for a human being. One of the main purposes of prisons was to strip criminals of their rights and keep them secluded from society, which is a serious punishment in and of itself. It is extremely unnecessary to take away a person’s life, regardless of what crime they committed.

The death penalty is under a theory call “Just Deserts” Radelet and Akers (1997) suggest that the citizens who commit cirimes should be put under an execution for tributive reasons. These citizens that commit crime should suffer, the effects of life imprisonment are not enough for murdering a person. Some views are worthy to go under a debate, but no research can tell us if an issue is right or wrong. No studies can answer the question of what these citizens or criminals deserve, nor settle debates surrounding the death penalty.

Is capital punishment justice? Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, remains to be one of the most hotly debated issues in the justice system. This subject contains large gray areas concerning many aspects of what is we consider modern justice. Many wonder if such a punishment should be allowed in our modern society. The argument of this paper is to convince others that capital punishment and all that it entails is a practical and just form of delivering justice, providing both secular and religious explanations as to why the death penalty is just.

In “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives”, written and published by David B. Mulhausen on September 29, 2014, Mulhausen speaks of the reasons why the death penalty is a proper way to bring murderers to justice. He believes that “some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties” (Mulhausen). Not only does he believe that the death penalty is useful to set criminals to justice, but he also believes that the enforcement of the death penalty deters crime rates.

Capital Punishment, also known as the Death Penalty, has been a part of the United State’s justice system for the majority of the country’s existence. Today, 31 out of the 50 states still recognize the death penalty as a viable option when dealing with high profile crimes, most notably murder and sexual assault. While many people argue that the death penalty should be made illegal, there is also widespread support in favor of keeping the death penalty, leaving the nation divided on the issue. Both sides of the argument possess valid evidence that supports their claims, but in the end, the arguments in favor of the death penalty are noticeably stronger. The death penalty is an appropriate sentence that should continue to be allowed in the

The legitimacy of the use of capital punishment has been tarnished by its widespread misuse , which has clouded our judgment regarding the justifiability of the death penalty as a punitive measure. However, the problems with capital punishment, such as the “potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness and racial skew" , are not a basis for its abolition, as the world of homicide suffer from these problems more acutely. To tackle this question, one must disregard the currently blemished universal status quo and purely assess the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty as a punitive measure. Through unprejudiced examination of the death penalty and its consequential impacts, it is evident that it is a punishment that effectively serves its retributive, denunciatory, deterrent, and incapacitative goals.

Only the most dangerous criminals in the world are faced with society’s ultimate penalty, or at least that is the theory. Capital punishment, commonly referred to as the Death Penalty has been debated for many decades regarding if such a method is ethical. While there are large amounts of supporters for the death penalty as a form of retribution, the process is avoidable financially as taxing for all parties involved. The financial expenses may be better off saved for life imprisonment with an emphasis in restorative justice for victims. Overall, there is unreasonable inefficiency with the capital punishment to justify the taking of another person’s life.

From an early age, children are taught that murder is morally wrong. In today’s complex society that is impeded by unsettling periods of civil unrest, it is an expectation for everyone to acknowledge and accept that murder is one of the worst crimes individuals can commit. Perhaps it can be said that the death penalty is one of our legal system’s biggest contradictions of itself, as, if someone commits murder (or another heinous crime of that caliber), such ‘murderers’ will, in states that have capital punishment laws, be sent to Death Row and ultimately murdered in order to prevent potential future crimes by such perpetrators. I believe that the death penalty is wrong not only as it is immoral to take a life, but also, such ineffective laws waste money and do not deter crime.

Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Why do some view the taking of a life morally correct? These questions are discussed and debated upon in every state and national legislature throughout the country. Advantages and disadvantages for the death penalty exist, and many members of the United States, and individual State governments, have differing opinions. Yet it seems that the stronger arguments, and evidence such as cost effectiveness, should lead the common citizen to the opposition of Capital Punishment.

Capital punishment which is also known as the death penalty refers to the court-ordered execution of a prisoner. It is a punishment of a serious crime called the capital offense and generally involves felony murder and more. Not all states have laws that support the death penalty but those that do are prisoners sentenced to death. There are people who agree with the death penalty because people see capital punishment as payment for murder. Those who oppose capital punishment like me argue that the death penalty is unjust, immoral, and indefensible state sanctioned murder of a human being. Even though they have committed a heinous crime, that vengeance is not the answer for healing the grief of victim’s families or communities or other loved ones. It does not act as a deterrent to crime, and is not an acceptable alternative to long-term imprisonment because the death penalty carries the possibility of wrongful execution of an innocent person.

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

    Confronting head-on two of the most prominent objections to the death penalty is the object of this paper: Is the death penalty a miscarriage of justice? And Does it Deter Crime?

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

In 2011 I was watching TV when I heard it announced that Osama Bin Laden had been killed. I observed thousands of Americans celebrating with chants, fireworks, tears, hugs, and smiles. I heard a speech by the Mayor of New York. He stated that this killing was a victory and would finally bring peace to all of the families and friends of the people who lost their lives in the attacks on 9/11. This idea, that the death of a murderer brings peace to the victim’s family and friends, was not only accepted but trusted that day. This idea isn’t always accepted when a murderer is sentenced to the death penalty in a court of law in the United States. In “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life”, Mayor Ed Koch argues that the death penalty strengthens the value of human life through focus on the importance of justice as well as focus on the victim and their families.

The debate on whether or not the death penalty should be abolished has been ongoing for quite a long period of time. While there are those who believe that the death penalty does not serve its intended purpose, proponents of the same are convinced that the relevance of the same cannot be overstated and hence it should not be abolished. In this text, I examine the arguments for and against the death penalty.