Prison time is an effective deterrent to a point, with some people more time is needed. Prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, it would seem that justice would be better served if they too were killed as they had planned to kill another human being. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims and this should be altered.
Since the United States does not have an official religious code to interpret right from wrong, we have to depend on our criminal laws. If the laws are not strict enough, as the Death Penalty is, it is too enticing for our criminals. Therefore making it easier for criminals to kill. Harsh, severe laws provide an important measure of society's values and morals. How can the government be "soft on crime"" How can they let others kill innocent people?
Is the death penalty unjust? Blackmun is opposing towards the death penalty. He claims that there is many faults in the system. Therfore thay should not be allowed to decide whether one should be kiiled on their commited crimes. In contrast to Scalia I think he has good points but he needs a better argument than the judical system has faults.
Based on the Best Bet theory we can assume that the risk of losing one’s own life and any potential to ever see freedom again is just as good of a punishment as any other. If not using capital punishment reduces how many are deterred and does not reduce the number of innocent lives taken we too are responsible for the loss of those lives. We are responsible not only for our own direct actions but also for our inaction and the consequences of it. Objections to the death Penalty: Objection 1: “Capital punishment is a morally unacceptable thirst for revenge.” Revenge is a personal response, done out of anger and hatred, which inflicts harm to the perpetrator. Retributivism is an unbiased and impartial response to a perpetrator that has wronged another.
He explains that the death penalty is just an act of torture and is too horrible to be used by our civilized society, stating that it is “torture until death” (220). He goes on to argue that the death penalty is unjust in its practice because it is applied in arbitrary and also in discriminatory ways. Quoting, “Remain grants that the death penalty is a just punishment for some murderers, but he thinks that justice does not require the death penalty for murderers” (221). He goes on to say that life imprisonment can be an alternative decision that stratifies the requirements of the justice
But in contrast there are very different at the same time. The crime control model is used in the criminal justice system for the prevention of crime. The crime control does not exclude that is possible to make a mistake, but based on the circumstances of the laws, the person is considered guilty until her or she is proven innocent. This model is based on old fashion laws which allow rapid and speedy convictions despite the mitigating factors of the case and the victim. The results, of the crime control model are wrongful convictions, being over-turned and this is a major downfall in the criminal justice system.
The reason for this is that not all states can agree on whether or not capital punishment is criminal in and of itself. Another important controversy within the subject is this: Regardless of whether or not the death penalty itself should be enforced, if it is going to be, then is it right to publicize the criminal’s execution, or should it remain private? The subject of privatized versus publicized executions is still a hot debate for most. Those who are in support of public executions have valid reasons, as do those who are against them. Both sides have been pretty stubborn in their views, the reason why we haven’t reached a decision as a whole.
Do you prosecute that as a hate-crime, just because it might be? One group of people is now getting special treatment under the law. That sounds lot like discrimination to me, which isn't how this country is supposed to work. Whatever happened to equal protection under the law? Further, because most hate-crime legislation puts added effort into prosecuting crimes against certain individuals or groups, what about the same crimes committed against someone who doesn't fit into one of those groups?
Since the capital punishment is still carry on, many opponents and defenders of the death penalty appeal to the sanctity of life. However, the death penalty is not justified. This is because death penalty is not an effective crime deterrent, executed innocent people and it needs a higher cost to carry on. First of all, some opponents argue that death penalty can help deter crime and protect public. For instance, the criminal will think twice before killing for fear of receive the strongest punishment.
“Different prosecutors in the state have different attitudes,” Tidmarsh said. “The arbitrariness in that sense of the death penalty is, to me, stunning. It’s not the quality of the act [that determines whether someone is put to death] … In many circumstances, it is the quality of the person who decides whether or not to seek the death penalty.” The judicial system deludes all involved to believe they are not responsible for putting someone to death, Tidmarsh