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.
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.
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.
Michael Rea March 22, 2011 Koch vs. Bruck "Is capital punishment an adequate and necessary form of payback for the crime of murder? And will it prevent the occurrence of future murders? These are the vital issues argued by Edward I. Koch in his article, "The Death Penalty is Justice," and David Bruck's "No Death Penalty." In my opinion, Koch is able to ideally show the need for capital punishment, while Bruck is ineffective at justifying his stance that the death penalty is an unsuitable punishment for the crime of murder." In "Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life", readers view the opinions toward the death penalty in today's world.
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.
The people that Shelton killed are considered combatants because they support they governmental system and work with it. Based on Just War Theory, the proportionality of killing these people is that their deaths are outweighed by the justice that will bring to the judicial system. Shelton believes the system to be corrupt, focusing instead on conviction rates rather than making sure the right person is placed behind bars. By killing these people Shelton can put a new mindset into the “system” because those affected by the killings will want the right man punished rather since they now know how it feels to be wronged. All the killings made by Shelton were to people who were directly showed how flawed the system was.
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
Diana Penuela Professor Leano English 1A 10 March , 2011 Capital Punishment Currently in California the death penalty is allowed. Capital punishment lowers the value of human life and it is based on a need of revenge. It also sends the wrong message to our kids and society by asserting that violence is the only way out. Teaching that killing is wrong by killing creates a culture of violence because it is only based on getting back at the prisoner by using violence. Capital punishment does not deter crime; instead it increases the murder rate and there is a chance of error.
Founded in 1988, the organization believes that the death penalty immoral and an ineffective, cruel, and simplistic response to the serious and complex problem of violent crime. It institutionalizes discrimination against the poor and people of color, diverts attention and financial resources away from preventative measures that would actually increase public safety, risk the execution of innocent people, and does not deter
When obviously they do not accept it by themselves? The point is the death penalty should not be abolished since it is the only way to stop criminals from killing, and hurting others. “The federal government and most states (38) in the USA have the death penalty. Some states rarely use it. Other states, however, are known as big users of the death penalty.