Since the United States does not have an official religious code to interpret right from wrong, we have to depend on our criminal laws. If the laws are not strict enough, as the Death Penalty is, it is too enticing for our criminals. Therefore making it easier for criminals to kill. Harsh, severe laws provide an important measure of society's values and morals. How can the government be "soft on crime"" How can they let others kill innocent people?
“Along with Troy Davis hundreds of people have been wrongfully convicted and executed in the United States” (David A. Love 1). Think about it if the person that faced the death penalty wasn’t guilty you took an innocent life. There are just some things that people shouldn’t have the ability to do, and sentencing someone to a death is one of them. “Since 1976-2010 there have been approximately 1,226 executions”.
Innocent people are getting murdered for a crime they didn’t commit. Gray Gauger was convicted of killing his parents but, after his conviction he was from innocent when the police heard the murders talking about the killing. Recently, Troy Davis was executed after convincing the judicial court he was innocent. There was no proof that he actually murdered the victim, and to this day the prosecutors don’t even feel guilty for executing the wrong person. To add to that most of the innocent people on death penalty were black.
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.
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.
McGurruth Miguel Instructor A.D. Ulm EN 120A/ 03 23 November 2012 Did you ever wonder why we need death penalty in Pohnpei? Pohnpei really need to have this type of punishment to make its citizens to stop committing crimes. If Pohnpei state will not have this it will get out of control so we must adapt this type of punishment. Pohnpei state government should adapt the process of having death penalty for criminals. There are four important reasons why death penalty which are to reduce chaos, stop crimes, eliminate criminals, and secure citizens.
Robert Jones Dr. Wilson Maina Ethics in Contemporary Society 19 February 2013 In a sense, everyone has different perspectives on the euthanasia topic. “Euthanasia is killing someone for the sake of mercy to relieve great suffering.” (148). The question looms, to what extent is killing someone for the relief of great suffering extend to? Whether society is ever going to pick a side or agree both ways has to unrealistic. The discussion if this topic is ethical or unethical is debated upon.
Shalom gives the example of Coretta Scott King who had a husband and mother-in-law killed in an assassination. Mrs. King felt that the death penalty is unjust to humans and stands opposed to the idea (6). Shalom feels that the system of justice is infallible. He mentions how many innocent people will be executed. He got this information from a study that was done in 1987 by Stanford Law.
If someone is mentally ill, their condition should not excuse them from their crime or offense. They should still receive the proper treatment for their condition while serving time for whatever crime they committed.If one is truly clinically insane then they should not go unpunished, but they should receive an appropriate punishment. An appropriate punishment should all depend on the nature of the crime and the nature of the illness. It would be very beneficial to everyone to put their attention towards the treatment instead of the punishment. It would not be safe to place a grossly insane person in prison for basically the rest of his/her life.
Since the capital punishment is still carry on, many opponents and defenders of the death penalty appeal to the sanctity of life. However, the death penalty is not justified. This is because death penalty is not an effective crime deterrent, executed innocent people and it needs a higher cost to carry on. First of all, some opponents argue that death penalty can help deter crime and protect public. For instance, the criminal will think twice before killing for fear of receive the strongest punishment.