On the other hand there are people that are for the death penalty. They are for the death penalty because they think that the people that have committed these crimes deserve to feel the horrible pain and fear that their victims felt. Some people believe that both side of the death penalty has valid arguments. It is up to each individual to make the decision as to where they stand. The two individuals that are on opposite sides of the death penalty are Edward Koch and David Bruck.
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
Capital punishment is defined as the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime. It is said that capital punishment is inhumane as it involves the killing of people. It concerns a life created by God and raises the question on the value of life and human rights. That is why several countries have started to abolish the aforementioned rule and have used the life sentence for the same cases as that of capital punishment. Countries that still wish to use the death penalty use it for very severe crimes/offences and are likely to be less economically developed countries such that of Ethiopia, Nigeria and Malaysia.Compared to the previous times, the death penalty is now reserved as a punishment for severe crimes such as murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice.
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.
With respect to murder, the penal code under section 200 explicitly states that any person who of malice aforethought’; thus, demands the need of the mens rea. Malice aforethought relates to the state of mind of the accused person at the time he caused the death of the deceased. malice aforethought may be either express malice which demands an intention to cause death or do grievous bodily harm, implied malice which entails proof of knowledge (knowledge that may be accompanied by indifference) that the act or omission will probably result into causing death or grievous harm to the person or constructive malice which requires the accused person to cause death while attempting or committing a felony. On the other hand, the mens rea of murder which is malice aforethought is not linked to manslaughter. This is why manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder.
Executions may increase murder rates because they raise the general violence level in society and because violence prone people identify with the executioner, not with the target of the death penalty. When someone gets in a conflict with such individuals or challenges his or her authority, he, or she will execute them in the same manner the states executes people who violates its rules. Since capital punishment is brutal, some countries have decided to abolish the cruel acts of punishment. They would rather have the offender remain incarcerated than to hand down such a brutal
Some crimes are so culpable that death is the only suitable penalty. I believe that the death penalty should be put into effect and if a human kills another human being, they should pay the crime. If someone has enough nerve to take the lives of others, then they too should have their life taken from them. Those are the people that simply do not deserve to live. Life is our most precious possession.
Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized for the simple fact many would give up and take the easy way out. There is currently a pervasive assumption that if assisted suicide and/or voluntary euthanasia (AS/VE) were to legalized, then doctors would take responsibility for making the decision that these interventions were indicated, for prescribing the medication, and (in euthanasia) for administering it .Richard Huxable remarks “that homicide law encompasses various crimes, so prosecutors can choose charges to suit the circumstances. Yet one thing is clear: mercy killing is still killing, equally, murder is murder” Physician assisted suicide is nothing more than cold blooded
Death Penalty is a Crime To use a lethal injection, electrocution, or gas to murder someone is a crime. This is what law enforcer’s use for the death penalty, also called capital punishment. Death penalty is wrong, and making someone suffer by causing them pain is not a good way for a punishment. The death penalty is racist; also some people that received the penalty were innocent. Our country’s money is being wasted on death penalties.
Anyone, the socially unproductive, the socially unwanted, will be considered useless; will kill off our own species, our morals. It is a way of mocking human life, turning ourselves into God, deciding who is fit to live and die”. Simply speaking, the legalization of assisted death is an act of legitimizing suicide and an inherent consent for killing. In addition there is a huge drawback, which people would start abusing this law and start committing murders