Supporters of the death penalty argue that it is the only just punishment for a murderer. I believe that the death penalty should be ended because one’s life is not more precious than another, the process is inhumane, and it is expensive. One of the reasons the death penalty should be stopped is because it puts the value of one’s life over another. Others may claim that the death penalty is a way to punish murderers. Although murder is a horrific crime to commit, is death really the only just punishment?
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.
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.
Deterrence is the idea that executing the murderers will decrease the rates of homicide by discouraging future murderers. It may make them fear that they themselves will suffer the penalty of death if they commit a murder. A person is less likely to do something, if he or she thinks that in doing so harm will come to him. This is what is referred to as "general deterrence". Another type of deterrence to look at is known as "specific
There is one giver of life and there for should only be one taker. Punishment should fit the crime, however capital punishment is wrong for moral and religious reasons, and it’s also costly as well as filled with error and against commonly accepted beliefs, but most importantly there are alternative that can eliminated most issue associated with the death penalty. Capital Punishment is against moral and religious values. Since we were old enough to understand we began being taught certain dos and don’ts of life. These particular values mold us as well as set example for the way that we are supposed to live our lives.
These questions and many more can spar an argument for or against Capital Punishment. Capital Punishment is an end all end and a justification for those individuals who willfully chose to take another person’s life. There can be the argument that it is immoral to take a person’s life, just because they took someone else’s. Personally, it’s a very striking contradiction for someone who has murdered multiple persons’ to therefore plea for their own lives in the end. 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.
So it makes perfect sense that the guilty (the one who is morally culpable) deserves to suffer. So, it is intrinsically good when the guilty suffer. That would mean that the guilty that is accused of the crime should suffer the consequence of their actions, however big or small. So in turn, punishing the guilty and making them suffer is sometimes morally justified. Sometimes it is better that
Mencken and Kroll Essay Capital punishment is a very contentious issue that is disputed by many Americans. Most argue over whether it is morally right or wrong to execute a criminal, but some are more concerned with the treatment of criminals on death row. The essays The Penalty of Death by H.L. Mencken and the Unquiet Death of Robert Harris by Michael Kroll are examples of two different view points of the death penalty and use completely different methods of argument. Kroll appeals to the emotions of the reader through description of the harsh, cruel conditions of death row, whereas Mencken uses dark humor while arguing for support of the death penalty.
Perhaps the most frequently raised argument against capital punishment is that of its cost. Other thoughts on the death penalty are to turn criminals away from committing violent acts. A just argument against the death penalty would be that sentencing an individual to death prevents future crimes by other individuals. However, criminals are not afraid of the death penalty. The chance of a criminal being sentenced to death is very slim.
In order to be sentenced to the death penalty, a man must commit a severe crime; for example, murder. If a man were to murder another, the rational thing to do would be to take his life away by sentencing them to death. The argument about it being “humane” counterbalances itself. First of all, committing murder is in no way humane, so why should the punishment of the killer be any different? Why should their life be sparred if what they did was completely and utterly inhumane?