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.
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.
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.
The ones who throw the bible at the penalty forget to read certain portions. “The murderer shall surely be put to death” (Numbers 35:16-18) this bible excerpt counters the argument. Abstracting the death penalty and saying it is wrong for the government to take ones life is the wrong way to approach the system. If each case was reviewed in the sense that the victim was a loved one, giving the criminal free room and board would be a harder choice. A claim that human life’s value is diminished when someone is executed is a bold claim.
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.
Mayor Edward Koch claims that to help the penalty for murder would be a huge insult to the victims, other than David Bruck correctly argues that justice is not served by creating another victim accountable for the things that he or she have done. The death penalty is a horrible thing that I do not agree with.
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.
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
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 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