Sparing the innocent victims who would be spared, ex hypothesi, by the nonexecution of murderers would be more important to me than the execution, however just, of murderers. But although there is a lively discussion of the subject, no serious evidence exists to support the hypothesis that executions produce a higher murder rate. Cf. Phillips, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: New Evidence on an Old Controversy, 86 AM. J. SOC.
Prison time is an effective deterrent to a point, with some people more time is needed. Prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, it would seem that justice would be better served if they too were killed as they had planned to kill another human being. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims and this should be altered.
Retributivism is an unbiased and impartial response to a perpetrator that has wronged another. Revenge usually inflicts harm greater in severity than the initial crime whereas retribution exacts proportional punishment. Objection 2: Even if the murderer deserves to die the state does not have special authority to take the life of another human being. “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Duet. 32:35 & Romans
Capital punishment does not deter crime; instead it increases the murder rate and there is a chance of error. Therefore, capital punishment should not exist in today’s society because it is an unconstitutional punishment. Capital punishment it’s not necessary and it is also unfair. There is a chance of error, you can execute the wrong person and later on find them innocent. Even though some may argue that death penalty deters crime, studies have shown that it does not.
Is the death penalty unjust? Blackmun is opposing towards the death penalty. He claims that there is many faults in the system. Therfore thay should not be allowed to decide whether one should be kiiled on their commited crimes. In contrast to Scalia I think he has good points but he needs a better argument than the judical system has faults.
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
A judge and or jury can and does accuse the wrong people. These people are later exonerated of there accusations and crimes and given a second chance. If you are sentenced to death and it is carried out there are no second chances available. What also may be considered however is the fact that the mistakes are few and worth the cause. If we can remove one serial killer, rapist or child molester we potentially save hundreds to thousands of victims in their lifetime.
Moreover it is shown that in many cases criminals are executed while there are reasonable doubts in their convictions and some have avoided execution by just a few hours before being exonerated. Another issue that was discussed is the inequality of death penalty in practice. There have been serious issues with racial discrimination. For reference in cases with white victims and black defendants convictions occurred twenty two percent of the time while with black victims and white defendants with percentage dropped to a measly three
This is truly a bothersome idea because the capital punishment is irreversible. No matter how many precautions are made, there are always going to be mistakes because decisions are made by humans. If the mistake is acknowledged after the execution, then the state would have committed a crime that’s equivalent to the murder. Since the 1900's, at least 416 innocent people have been sentenced to death penalty in the name of justice. (Popular Misconceptions About the Death Penalty, n.d.).
Real justice requires people to suffer for what they did and to suffer in a way that is appropriate for the crime. For example, for murder they should be murdered in the same way. By executing convicted murderers they won’t have a chance of doing the same to someone else. The very small chance of executing the wrong person is balanced by the benefits to society of putting off other murders who were thinking about doing the same. Also, DNA testing and other methods of crime scene science can now be so precise and can eliminate any uncertainty to whether someone is guilty or not.