Opponents argue against it saying it is inhumane, racially biased, and that it does not deter crime. This paper will argue support of the death penalty. The death penalty is a justified and unbiased punishment for murderers proven guilty of taking another innocent life and is a deterrent for murderous
California should remain this as a useful method of punishment for murder and other terrible crimes. There is nothing worse than losing a loved one. Capital punishment is not just about taking revenge on the person that caused pain, but it’s a method that California should continue to use in order for there to be direct consequences. Even if the person that committed the crime has a life sentence in prison this already cost a large amount of money for taxpayers. Execution is the best method to eliminate the person that committed the crime.
I feel it adversely is shown and sought out to enhance the value of human life by demonstrating the old saying “an eye for an eye.” If government were to lower the penalty of murder it would portray that the victims’ loss of life was less significant than that of the murderer. Some opponents feel that a life sentence in prison is a far worse punishment than death. If this is true, then why do so many convicted prisoners put on death row try to appeal and get a lesser sentence? These prisoners who committed the same act outside prison walls are now facing death with no alternative, as their victim had, and aren’t ready to answer to the consequences. In the case of Stephanie Benton, I saw this with my own eyes.
The death penalty should only be acted upon if there is absolutely no doubt that the guilty has committed the crime. This would rid us of these horrible people permanently. Who no longer have any purpose or contribution to society. Of course miscarriage of justices have happened in the past but I believe due to advances in forensic policing (D.N.A.) and CCTV etc.
That unwarranted punishment is, in effect, a civil death sentence because of the barriers to meaningful employment created by that sigma. We regret our mistakes, we do not intend to repeat them, we have worked hard to overcome them and improve ourselves. We only want our lives back and we deserve a Second Chance." Jaime Woodard There are many philosophies of incarceration. For some the purpose of prison is to protect society from criminals who intend to harm innocent civilians.
I feel that torture is inhumane, and it should not be practiced as a punishment for a crime. However, if a terrorist has chosen to do something horrible where it puts innocent peoples’ lives in danger, then by all means the terrorist has lost all of his rights. In this situation torture should be used to get information as it could help prevent a future catastrophe rather than punishing for a past
They should be distinguished by motivations because someone could have done something that is considered a crime by law but it actually helped or saved someone’s life. Another reason is because if someone planned out and executed a murder and someone got into a car accident and took a life, the person who thought it out should get dealt with more severely. Yes I feel that hate is a more heinous motivation than revenge. I feel this way because hate crimes are committed for no specific reason aside from the fact that they hate that person because of their race, gender, or religion. Revenge crimes are committed because the individual themselves may have been mistreated and have more of a reason to commit a crime.
In the article “A Defense of the Death Penalty”, written by Ernest Van Den Haag, the author believes that it is immoral to allow murderers to live because they have the potential to kill more innocent people. He argues in favor of capital punishment by responding to six objections to the death penalty. With one of the objections, Van Den Haag responds by stating that the death penalty does deter crime and that it is actually beneficial to a society. He believes that people will refrain from committing crimes if they know that it will lead to their death. I reconstructed Van Den Haag’s argument below: 1.
So many non-supporters of the death penalty say they are against it because of racial discrimination, or how it treats humans as like animal, or that it is cruel and unusual, or that retribution is another word for revenge and therefore they believe that life imprisonment is a just enough punishment. But giving a convicted murderer life imprisonment could still result in death by their hands
Since the dawn of human society, the death penalty has been used as a form of justice. The death penalty is one of the most controversial topics in the United States due to its finality and severity. Some see capital punishment as the ultimate denial of human rights while others believe it is a necessary deterrent within our justice system. Deterrence and retribution are two key arguments in favor of the death penalty. In contrast, true wrongs do not make a right, and this can be looked at as a cruel form of punishment violating our constitutional rights.