The Death Penalty Is The Most Humane And Deserving Punishment

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

Some of the arguments in support of death penalty are it decreases the chance of crime rate. In absence of death penalty there is higher chance of increase in crime rate. According to the time magazine, an estimated two hundred thousand people in United States have been victims of some kind of crimes. With not proper law criminals will feel more free to commit heinous crimes. To secure the community and create a sense of fear in criminals to commit horrible crimes, there is a need for death penalty.

As far back as one can look into human civilization, justice for a murder victim has always been by taking the life of the killer. In today’s society capital punishment is needed to defend it from further harm, bring justice and/or vengeance to the victims of the loved ones, and encourage psychological deterrence. As of today, there are thirty-two states which offer the only just punishment for a crime without parallel and eighteen states having abolished the death penalty.

Many people question the need for the death penalty, the execution of those who have committed certain crimes, as a capital punishment. For instance, the author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment”, Jack Greenburg, who is a Professor of Law at Columbia University, argues that the death penalty does not benefit society and is not necessary. Likewise, Kevin Johnson, writer of “Study Finds No Evidence Death Penalty Deters Crime”, also argues against the use of the death penalty by pointing out the flaws in the common research of deterrence. On the other hand, some may also argue for the many aids the death penalty offers. Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy at Fordham University, Ernest Van den Haag, with his “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense”, and authors James M. Reams and Charles T. Putnam, with their article, “Making a Case for the Deterrence Effect of Capital Punishment”, both give arguments for the grander justice the death penalty offers. While each of these articles give very well thought out claims for the necessity of the death penalty, using arguments including racism, and deterrence, Van den Haag’s claim gives the clearest and best arguments.

Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty, has been effective tool in our country’s justice system since its inception. When an inmate is given this, the harshest sentence available, it is always with just cause. Capital Punishment is an important tool in our criminal justice system today and there are several reasons it should remain in effect.

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.

However satisfying vengeance may seem, a civilized society cannot accept an eye-for-an- eye, tooth-for-a-tooth delivery of justice. Although some families and loved ones of murder victims approve the death penalty, many others are against it. Further, some family members of homicide victims comment that the death penalty process prolongs their pain, and only serves to make their healing more elusive. Financial and emotional support is what they need most, not more violence. In the words of the father of one murder victim, "Violence is not an acceptable method of solving the problems that arise in our daily lives.... The use of the death penalty only lowers the standards of government to the

Keeping a prisoner in jail for life will be very expensive considering that it costs $80,000 a year; and the bad news is that the money comes from the taxpayer's pocket. Thousands of people will attack the death penalty. They will give emotional speeches about the one innocent man who might be executed. However, all of these people are forgetting one crucial element. They are forgetting the thousands of victims who die every year. This may sound awkward, but the death penalty saves lives. It saves lives because it stops those who murder from ever murdering again (Bryant). These opinions represent some of the strongest and most influential views that proponents hold. However, if our prison system could rehabilitate more effectively, perhaps those who murdered once, could change.

The death penalty is basically enforced following unfair trials and for non-lethal offenses like economic crimes, drug-related crimes, and sexual relations between consenting adults. While there have been ongoing calls to abolish this sentence, capital punishment is still used in some cases on the basis that international law does not prohibit the death penalty. However, it's now apparent that many nations across the globe are abolishing capital punishment as evident in the fact that various international treaties now outlaw the death penalty. One of the major reasons capital punishment has largely been used in the past is the publication of various studies that claim that the death penalty has a strong deterrent effect on crime. However, recent findings have demonstrated that capital punishment does not necessarily accomplish the goals it was meant to achieve. Therefore, the death penalty should be abolished because it does not have a strong deterrent effect, is inconsistent with the basic values of the democratic system, and is an unbearable denial of civil rights.

The death penalty, or capital punishment, has always been a topic of much debate in the United States. There are those who support it and those who oppose it, and each side has their fair share of points being made, backed by supportive evidence. The topics range from the morality of this punishment, including the methods of execution as well as fairness issues in regards to sex and race. The first issue that will be addressed is in regards to the death penalty working to prevent violent crimes.

Since the mid 1900’s, capital punishment has brought many individuals into many diverse view points throughout the years. Capital punishment is a way of punishing a convict by killing him or her because of the crime he or she committed. Capital punishment will always have its pros and cons. There are opponents who absolutely disagree with capital punishment. And then there are advocates who support the idea. In the advocates view point, capital punishment is a way to minimize the threat in the world today. In the opponent’s point of view, opponents disagree with capital punishment, because of the high expenses it brings to the states. Also, opponents argue that capital punishment

Last but not least, from a sociologic perspective, capital punishment does not work as intended, to deter crime rate, rather, it might brutalize individuals, at the same time does nothing good to the victim’s family other than brutal vengeance. The origin of death penalty is served as a vehicle to put a warning for those potential future criminals that such kind of behavior will lead to death. However, so far, no clear evidence can be seen that capital punishment, as a mechanism of deterrent, actually cut down the local crime rate. Ironically, a reversal trend was found by Death Penalty Information Center (2010) in the USA that the death penalty leads to an increase in local murder rate. To die might be too easy for the mindless murderers. Also, for the relatives or friends of criminals put into death through capital punishment, they are more likely to be

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.

An issue that has continually created tension in today's society is whether the death penalty serves as a justified and valid form of punishment. Whenever the word "death penalty" comes up, extremists from both sides start yelling out their arguments. One side says deterrence, the other side says there's a potential of executing an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder. Crime is an evident part of society, and everyone is aware that something must be done about it. Most people know the threat of crime to their lives, but the question lies in the methods and action in which it should be dealt with. In several parts of