The Death Penalty Is The Only Good Enough Punishment

Other Christians I previously spoke to believe that, “the killer's actions are irreversible and that such a crime deserves an equal punishment”. These same people would cite the biblical passage that exhorts "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". However, if a crime deserves equal punishment, then why do we not rape the rapist or burn the arsonist? A civilized society must be based on values and principles that are higher than those it condemns. Biblically, we are called to live by higher values. In the New Testament, Jesus said that we may have heard it said "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but He instructed us to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38-41) to love even our enemies (Matthew 5:43-45), to obey the Ten Commandments which tell us not to kill (Exodus 20:13) and not to put ourselves into the position of God by judging whether others live or die (John 8:7). Vengeance and retribution are to be left to God, who is the only One with the perfect capabilities of judgment. If the argument is that serious crimes

“Everyone who commits a crime is not committing a compulsive act” (Wasserstrom 573) and therefore, we should not act impulsively towards them. The punishment should not be grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime charged, nor should it violate the convicted individual’s dignity.      Lastly, there is the aspect of my religion (Catholic) playing a factor in the capital punishment debate. Many people point to the passage in Leviticus, which states that an eye for an eye is God's decree (Costanzo 592).

Committing crimes as horrendous as mass shootings at schools should be dealt with the highest punishment available under the constitution. Mass shooters like Adam Lanza, who in cold blood murdered 20 children and 6 staff members in an elementary school located in the quiet town of Sandy Hook, Connecticut. There is no rehabilitation for a psychopathic killer who takes the life of TWENTY innocent children with neither hesitation nor reason. Adam Lanza is the prime example of a criminal who deserved to be tried with the death penalty as an option. He held no remorse, before he went to the elementary school and slaughtered 20 kids; he murdered his 52 year old mother while she was sleeping in her bedroom. These are characteristics of a man who deserved the death penalty as punishment for the murder of 26 people and suffering inflicted on the families. This man was neither innocent nor deserving of sympathy. In cases similar to Sandy Hook, the death penalty should be an option.

As Ghandi once said, “You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty”. Canada is a society based around democracy; if the government grants themselves the absolute power to end a person’s life with a single sentence, there are bound to be negative repercussions. It is human nature to makes mistakes, but it is a virtue to learn from them. Instead of resulting to the death penalty as a punishment for committing a serious crime, society should have faith in that person’s ability to change, improve, and be rehabilitated. Moreover, the death penalty is an ineffective way to punish criminals when it comes to serious crimes. If anything, it is an escape for those who have no remorse for their actions. There is no reason to end the life of a human being, no matter how malevolent they are, as it does not benefit society in any way, shape, or form. One could argue that the offender would no longer be able to harm others, but that same result could come from a prison sentence. Furthermore, the rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are fundamental human rights that are not subject to a select group of people, but all of humanity. Capital punishment, no matter the reason, is essentially still murder, as the life of another human is being taken. Limitations must be set in order to separate humanity from the criminals it harbors. Society

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. There is no harsher punishment than death itself. This nation, the United States of America, is currently one of fifty-eight nations that practice the death penalty, if one commits first-degree murder as of 2012. People that believe in the death penalty also believe that it will deter murders. In this paper I will argue that the death penalty does not deter criminals and that this nation should outlaw the practice.

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.

Although our nation has gotten away from it in recent years, we were founded by those who had strong religious beliefs. On this note there are several passages in the bible that speak of letting the punishment fit the crime, hence making the victim whole again. Take, for example, Leviticus 24:19-23. This passage implicitly reads as follows: “19Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: 20fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered. 21One who kills an animal shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.” The principle here is making the victim whole. We must remember that when the circumstances warrant capital punishment the details of the crime are usually tremendously heinous. That being said sometimes capital punishment is the only fair and equitable punishment.

Many people view the death penalty differently and they view capitol punishment as the ultimate warning because if they know they will be killed for their actions, then they are less likely to do so. The supporters of the death penalty also state that the procedures used to kill the prisoners are extremely effective and have the ability to turn off the brain before any pain is felt, therefore, making the death penalty inoffensive. Lastly, and possibly one of the biggest reasons why people still support executions, stems from the biblical verse “an eye for an eye”. This principle, in respect to the death penalty, means that a man who has injured another man must be punished to the same degree.

Various religions also have varied responses to capital punishment. Even a particular denomination or religious group may not have a unified stand regarding capital punishment. Religious sentiments do play a significant part in the views of people regarding capital punishment. The Bible is replete with various passages that may seem to support or condemn capital punishment. The Old Testament, particularly, is based upon a morality of “teeth against teeth” and “life for life.” The books of laws of the Old Testament actually prescribe stoning to death the persons who commit serious crimes against God and against the community. A number of biblical scholars have considered the part of the Ten Commandments that say “You shall not kill” as a prohibition against individual cases of murder (The Ryrie Study Bible, Exodus 20:13). In the first place, the Christian faith believes that humans are created in the image of God. As such, a serious crime against another person is also a crime against God. In the Old Testament, premeditated murder was sufficient reason for the death penalty (Numbers 35:31, 33). Moreover, in Genesis 9:6, it can be read that “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”. St. Thomas Aquinas also published his thoughts regarding capital

has the power to give and take away life as he chooses.  All men are to preserve

Perhaps most importantly, one must consider the basic ethical question of hypocrisy. We must ask ourselves, "What type of message are we as a nation sending to the rest of the world and to our own citizens when we kill people who kill people to show that it is wrong to kill people?" By executing murderers, we are merely lowering ourselves to their level in order to express our primitive desire for retribution. Our society can never be called moral or democratic if we begin sacrificing individuals, without their consent, to 'the greater good.' Since capital punishment is supposedly intended to protect and avenge innocent lives, it has failed its purpose if, as it undoubtedly has and will, it causes even a few blameless people to be killed. The

When presented with a heinous crime, the question of whether the death penalty should be an option has often sparked heated debates between left wing liberals and right wing conservatives. Those on the left would most likely argue that capital punishment does not serve any beneficial purpose in our society. In contrast, conservatives, provided that they have no religious motives to oppose the death penalty, would likely argue that it is a necessary punishment for heinous crimes. For thousands of years the death penalty has been used as the ultimate form of punishment for a vast number of crimes and in even more numerous methods. Babylon’s King Hammurabi identified 25 different crimes that justified the death penalty; the list did not however include murder. A popular form of punishment during the colonial period in New England, over 222 crimes were punishable by death. These numbers began to dwindle to zero once it was determined that capital punishment was inhumane by the British government ("The history of capital punishment"). The movement to abolish the death penalty has spread to many other countries around the world but has yet to have a widespread effect in the United States. Still currently legal in the U.S. in 31 states, the death penalty remains as a reminder of mankind’s barbaric past (Facts about the Death Penalty).

In his paper, “The Minimal Invasion Argument Against the Death Penalty”, Hugo Adam Bedau argues against the death penalty. Bedau’s purpose is to convince people to favor the lifetime imprisonment over the death penalty with an argument that had been previously used by other authors called “The minimal Invasion Argument”, which he considers to be “the best argument against the death penalty”(Bedau, 4). In this paper I will describe Bedau’s argument and show how he has some weaknesses addressing the concept of the minimal invasion argument by ignoring what in my opinion is the main reason why the death penalty has not been abolished; this reason being our incapacity as humans to “define” our environment. When

(Death Row on Trial 2001: video) Religiously, the death penalty can also be morally justified because the Bible states “an eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:23-27) which can be interpreted as a life for a life.

The most influential text and source of many of the moral ideas of the world come from the Bible. The Bible outlines many of the crimes that are thought to be fundamentally wrong today. Also, the Bible provided ideologies and guidelines for the punishment of those who committed crimes, especially murder. The history of capital punishment can also be traced to this ancient text. Q5 The Bible says ?Man was made like God, so whoever murders a man will himself be killed by his fellow man.?(my bible) This explains a lot of the history of the death penalty. Q1 p9