A Defense of the Death Penalty Louis P. Pojman The death penalty serves as both a deterrent for would be murderers and a fitting punishment for those who intentionally and out of malice take the life of another human being. Retribution: It is sometimes argued that the death penalty serves as a form of revenge for the victims of heinous crimes. For those who argue from this stance, revenge is never the proper method for assigning punishment because it is done out of anger and with the intent of inflicting harm upon another human being. Vengeance itself is not the basis for designating the death penalty. Instead retribution is justification enough, although it may be accompanied by feelings of anger and hatred.
The only justification for causing death is to prevent the deaths of others. Thus, individuals have the right to use deadly force to save their own lives from criminal aggressors, and countries have the right to wage war to prevent their own destruction. Likewise, a community can and should use capital punishment to protect the lives of its members. Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote: “The slaying of an evildoer is lawful inasmuch as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community.” When judiciously applied as a punishment for the willful killing of innocents, the death penalty serves to deter those who would murder and to protect society from those who have murdered. By reserving the ultimate penalty of death for those who wantonly kill, we are clearly proclaiming our special reverence for life.
A death sentence brings finality to a horrible chapter in the lives of these family members. It would mean that the family members of the victim could then end all sadness of the crime committed and try to forget about it as best they can and know that justice has been served to the defendant. If it wasn’t for the various types of punishment there wouldn’t be a way to deter people from committing crime. The death penalty creates another form of crime deterrent. Prison time is an effective deterrent to a point, with some people more time is needed.
Not because Whetmore was attacking them, but because they would die without the nutrients. This clearly to me is murder. They took a life; this is what the law
He describes lethal injections as too “hospitalized” and would oppose the thought of it. The author later explains that if there was any sort of death penalty there should just be a traditional firing squad. In another argument he also explains that no one takes responsibility for the punishment, and in case of the firing squad the responsibility is just diffused to different groups. He later explains that we have to take responsibility as a people about these capital punishments and that the past really does count. He concludes by saying anesthesia needs to be abolished, and in order to kill a person we, as a people will find a constitutional way to kill them.
Some of the smartest individuals and the leaders of most countries decided torture was inhumane and should be outlawed. Thus torture was one of the first issues that the United Nations dealt with (Dieringer). The act of torture is so inhumane and such a pressing issue that the leaders of the world outlawed it as quickly as possible to save lives. Torture is so powerful and so evil that it may deprive someone of his will to exist. Depriving a person of his will to live is the same, if not worse than killing that person.
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
This results in poor representation of convicted people in courts and unfair verdicts. Another issue associated with the penalty is that the value of life is lessened. Government should be concerned with the damage inflicted on society when a person is sentenced to be killed by juries. Being put to death by a people does not seem to be that different from a heinous murder committed by a murderer. With all of the media reporting executions like movies, societies become desensitized and accept death penalty as the right way to take care of criminals.
For example in 2004, crimes rate for states do not use the death penalty had 4.08 murders per 100000 inhabitants compare to states use death penalty had 6.32 murders per 100000 inhabitants. Besides that, Europe and Canada which without death penalty had lower crime rate compared to United State. Furthermore, imprisonment as the deterrent is more effective than death penalty. The presidents of country’s top academic criminological societies show that 84%
Lincoln Douglas Debate Case Outline Negative “Killing innocent civilians is a horrific, hideous act that no religion can approve.” It is because I agree with Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy that I feel compelled to negate today’s resolution, Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. For clarification of today’s round, I offer the following definitions : First, I would like to define foreign policy. Foreign policy is defined by dictionary.com as a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives. Targeted killing is defined as the premeditated killing of an individual by a state organization or institution outside a judicial procedure or a battlefield. The highest value in today's debate is that of utilitarianism.