This makes no sense to continuously try to end violence with violence. This only incorporates in others the idea that “killing already incarcerated criminals can somehow solve the problem of violence in American Life” (Bessler). Many may not realize this, but capital punishment has only a corrosive influence on any society. Although many people feel that the death penalty is the solution to punishing criminals, it is not moral. Thus, nobody should ever turn to the death penalty as an alternative to punish these infamous criminals.
It looks like they should kill their enemy, but at the beginning of two stories they didn’t because both barber and the narrator have justice in their heart. “Gregory” is a story about loyalty, friendship and irony. When the narrator’s execution is ordered the guerrilla's must choose between their friend and their loyalty to their country. However, the narrator has to obey the order to kill him. In “Just lather, that’s all”, the barber has a lot of chance to kill Captain Torres but he didn’t.
It was an evil and cowardly act on the part of Riel. When Riel's trial took place he wasn't even charged with deliberate and intentional murder of an innocent man. Even if he was not charged with treason he should still face the death penalty for killing a man. The NIV Bible clearly states what should be done in this situation, "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot". 'Life for life,' Riel should have clearly been executed for this one reason alone.
Both of them have no good reason for sentencing people to death but more just want it to happen because they have the power to do it as Giles Corey points out in “The Crucible”. “Say nothin' more, John. He's only playin' you! He means to hang us all! (Miller 91) It is clear that Danforth has an absolutely senseless reason for killing people because he chooses to believe that witchcraft is real like Hitler chooses to believe that Germans are a superior race and Jews cause all of the worlds problems.
Conrado Valido Frederick Knowles English Composition: Response Paper 11 February 2011 The Death Penalty According to David Bruck, “neither justice nor self-preservation demands that we kill men” and I beg to differ. Death penalty is considered as a controversial topic today. Death penalty is the best way to bring justice because it is cheap, it serves as justice for the victims, and it gives a higher regard to the victim’s suffering in the hands of the murderer. Although some people oppose death penalty saying it is immoral and a waste of life, it is still the best way to bring justice to the victims of heinous crimes. Death penalty is the best way to bring justice because it is cheap.
This is true because god always brings good out of evil, there is no pleasure from removal of pain if is person is dead. The catechism says that abortion and euthanasia is wrong. (c.c.2277) whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. These ideas of removal of life are wrong for it only kills and it prevents the growth of life.
“The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge “(1). It’s important to notice that Montresor wants revenge, not for his injuries, but for the insult. The word “ventured” is also interesting. It literally means “to undertake an action with knowledge that there is risk involved.” This quote suggests that Montresor thinks that Fortunato knew what he was risking, but chose to insult or betray him anyway. So it is obvious than that Montresor does have the character trait of revenge or vengeful.
However, I believe that the death penalty is inhumane and should not be used anymore. It has been said that the death penalty serves as justice for a murder victim and their family, however, the death penalty itself is a form of murder. When is it okay to take a life? Is it only okay for the justice system to take a life for the justice of another life? Supporters of the death penalty argue that it is the only just punishment for a murderer.
Rainsford’s murder is more of a cycle of nature than corruption. He has no feelings of revenge or hate against them; he only wants to escape from the island. Conversely, in the short story “Lather and Nothing Else” by Hernando Tellez, if the barber had killed the general, the murder would be wrong. The murder would have been motivated by hate, making the barber a murderer, not a hero. When murder happens because of self-defense, not malice, killing is acceptable.
In the essay, “The Death Penalty: Is it Ever Justified,” an admitted killer named, Joseph Carl Shaw, in an appeal wrote: ‘Killing was wrong when I did it. Killing is wrong when you do it. I hope you have the courage and moral strength to stop the killing”’ (575). In the same essay, Edward I. Koch states, “It is a curiosity of modern life that we find ourselves being lectured on morality by cold-blooded killers” (575). If a person takes another persons’ life, how dare they plea for their own!