Capital Punishment Essay: Hypocrisy of the Death Penalty

One of the two murderers in the book, Richard Hickock, says about capital punishment: “[…]. Revenge is all it is, but what’s wrong with revenge? It’s very important. […]” (Capote 335). However, revenge is not the foundation on which the death penalty is based on. There’s a difference between revenge and lawful punishment: revenge is purely personal, usually performed by the victims or their relatives, while a lawful punishment is carried out by the law in order to deter perpetrators from further criminal acts, rehabilitate them, or in extreme cases, isolate them from society completely; capital punishment is the second case. However, now that death

In today’s society, where human rights and human life are supposed to be valued, “responding to one killing with another killing” is not an effective way to deal with the situation (source F). The kind of mentality and consequences capital punishment promotes, provides only revenge, and not justice. This compensation is not beneficial to anyone, because it makes the victim as cruel as the criminal and originates from violence. The Christian Doctrine does not support the capital punishment, and “with other forms of punishment available, the USCCB argues, capital punishment is not an effective cure for society’s greatest ills and crimes” (source E). This type of punishment has no place in modern society, because we are not barbarians, and have less cruel ways of dealing with criminals.

Contradictory to Schorth, Robert Blecker goes on to that this punishment is not meant for revenge, using it as revenge would be as if we were using a person to send a message, the death penalty is much larger than that. We should kill for one reason and one reason only: They deserve it, in three words. In one word: justice”(Blecker). The death penalty is not used for revenge nor it does not continue a cycle, it ends the cycle. Criminals, such as the ones in the cases above, take from people, they take their lives, their peace, and their liberties in order to give themselves undeserved

In the cases of capital punishment killing can be justified. According to the article, When Murder Is Punished with Death, fewer criminals will murder, “The deterrent power of punishment is axiomatic, criminal law would be meaningless without it” (Jacoby). In

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 fact, one may observe the use of the death penalty in modern society as one of the holdouts of ancient legal codes. Although many are opposed to the use of the death penalty, the debate over its use and legality continues to rage. One of the more high profile cases involving the use of the death penalty is in the case of convicted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was sentenced to death for his role in the bombings in May 2015. Such a conviction, although it is extreme, is found to be justified under the law despite its retribution-like quality. The question of whether such laws and rulings are just will continue to be debated. In the interim, however, it appears that the death penalty will continue to exist as an option in many U.S. states. It is simply interesting to note how, despite the numerous advances in case law over the last several centuries, the concept of retribution and a punishment fitting a crime continues to exist to this day.

In the book In Cold Blood, a book about a true killing that took place, the killer of innocents himself stated that “If I was kin to the Clutters” he said talking about the ones killed “ I couldn’t rest in peace till the ones responsible had taken that ride on the Big Swing [were hung]” (qtd. in Capote 335). This quote integrates a unique view of revenge as used for healing with the perspective of the distresser who caused the violence and trauma expressing that if he were in the victim's position he would also want vengeance. In Von Drehle’s article in Times Magazine, he an expert on the death penalty uses a quote that implies that capital punishment is just a form of revenge, the quote asks “Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?”(qtd in. Von Drehle).

These standpoints go hand and hand when discussing capital punishment. One point of view states retribution is punishment given to someone for committing a wrong or criminal act. According to Pat Buchanan, “The decision to execute a murderer is an act of just retribution, not revenge. If the death penalty were truly vengeful, criminals would be executed by the same means that they used to kill their victims” (Mitchell, 99). Further described by Louis P. Pojman, “Retributivism is the theory that the criminal deserves to be punished and deserves to be punished in proportion to the gravity of his or her crime” (ProCon.org, 2). Both explain that the death penalty is not a vengeful act, but more of an eye for an eye theory. Which states that a person should be penalized to the same degree as their crime. An example from the Law of Hammurabi says, “If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death...” (Fieser, 2). Retribution ties in closely saying an eye for an eye is in this case a life for a life. Through capital punishment the state partly “pays back” what the criminal has permanently taken away, a human life, which can never be created again (Mitchell, 1). In addition Buchanan states, “Retribution means paying back, making restitution to a victim of what has been unjustly taken away” (Mitchell, 1). In summary, both of the viewpoints of capital punishment is retribution and capital punishment is an eye for an eye are both arguable

Whether the motive of vengeance, or retribution - which some would actually call justice -- is a moral reason for using the death penalty is similarly debatable. Aristotle defined justice as "giving each his due." This type of justice is interpreted by some to be supportive of the lex talionis philosophy - "that the worst crime be punished with society's worst penalty." Opponents of the death penalty feel that it is barbaric and savage; an advanced society such as ours should not participate in it. Once again, however, it is merely a matter of opinion. To argue that "capital punishment is inconsistent with the advancement of civilization, is to rely on arbitrary definitions of 'advancement' and 'civilization' for a circular argument."

Hugo Adam Bedau provides an argument against retribution as he states, “Retribution does not yield a coherent and comprehensive system of punishment” (p. 42). Beau argues that the principle by itself does not provide a defense for the death penalty; it is fully satisfied by a lesser

Some individuals believe that justice is only served when an offender’s punishment has effects of the some degree to that of their victim in relation to the crime committed against them. In this case, they argue that execution is a more punishments compared to other forms of punishments aimed to help the criminal reform; since the sentence makes the criminal suffer in a similar degree to their victims. However those opposing capital punishment argue that a sentence is meant to help on to reform and learn from their mistakes. However ones an offender is executed via the death sentence nothing is learnt since one cannot learn when dead. As a result in such a case the justice did not have any impact nor serve its purpose.

The concept of retribution and justice should bestow to society. This is imperative for peace to be maintained and that justice is served. If criminals were allowed to get away with such a serious crime as taking a humans life fear and chaos would rule. Sentence for life in prison will not be substantial enough. The government must be trusted to protect its innocent citizens from further crimes.

The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge.

Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.

Though capital punishment might seem like the only way to get revenge, it is morally unjust. Who are we to decide whether a