If a person takes another persons’ life, how dare they plea for their own! They have no rights as far as I am concerned. It would be immoral for anyone to stand by and do nothing against those who willfully take another persons’ life. In the Holy Bible, Genesis Chapter 9, Verse 6 states: “Who so sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” There are consequences for everything that we do in this life. If we have unprotected sex, we know that consequences such as an unplanned pregnancy, STDS, and even death can occur from that one choice we make in an instance.
In this paper, I will discuss the effect that capital punishment has on deterring criminal activity. Capital punishment is the execution of criminals by the state, for committing crimes, regarded so terrible, that this type of punishment is the only acceptable punishment for the crime committers. For decades now, there has been an ongoing debate over the death penalty in America. The chief argument in favor of death sentences is the fact that it can be used as a deterrent. Deterrence is the idea that executing the murderers will decrease the rates of homicide by discouraging future murderers.
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.
There are treaties set in place such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention against Torture that are against it “consider it along with genocide, torture is the only crime that every state must punish it no matter what”. I found it interesting that since September 11, 2001, these laws on the legality of torture did not change in any way shape or form yet Americans are okay with it? I do not agree with this at all because I believe that every human being has rights. Who are we to forcibly retrieve information from somebody? Who are we to break someone’s will?
“Genocide is the ultimate essentializing of the exotic. It defines a type and assigns it a character, projecting what is inwardly hated or feared onto this fetish” (Goodman, 2010). It is wrong to single out a group of people because of their religion, race, or beliefs. I do not believe that people should die because another race thinks they are better than them. I find that to be one of the most ridiculous things in the world.
(van den Haag) The argument of retribution is also based in the religious idea of “an eye for an eye” or “a life for a life”. Kant and other supporters of the death penalty believe that the punishment should fit the crime so therefore the only acceptable punishment for murder is death. (3 Philosophos) J. Budziszewski, PhD, a professor of Government and Philosophy, pointed out: Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done.
According to this view, if the state is allowed to kill, why is not this privilege extended to all citizens? Nevertheless, as valuable as this contention may be, what York fails to recognize is that everyone who is condemned to death has received a trial by jury and has been found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”--the same criteria applied in the judgment of all accused persons. Sentencing someone to death, therefore, is not an arbitrary decision. It is one that is passed by a government who has promised to protect everyone who abides by the rules and codes of a moral and decent society. How can we allow a small but ever-growing percentage of the population to continually hurt others because not enough fear is instilled in these individuals--their lives are not threatened, so
True, every human was born with human rights, but I believe if you take away someone else’s life, you give up your human rights. It is not their job to play god and take away a life with their own hands. The only punishment that fit for the crime is to take away a murderers life. I don’t believe that the death penalty is for everyone. Only in some major cases which includes only death of an innocent person with criminal intent.
The death penalty is a necessary tool for the United States as it helps reduce the extreme crimes that are arising today. The Death penalty has many opponents. Stephanie Boys is just one in thousands. In her article “The Death Penalty: An Unusual Punishment America is Inflicting Upon Itself” she argues that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it is cruel and unusual punishment. She quotes the Constitution of the United States and argues that the Death Penalty goes against the 8th amendment.
It is said in many scriptures in all religions that God will punish non-believers and heretics so why would people take matters into their own hands. I believe these people should be punished by God for such immoral acts. This violence is too excessive and is unjustifiable by any means. Religious violence and any other type of violence (except self-defense) can never be morally excused. Everyone in the world agrees that the action of Adolf Hitler in the Holocaust was an abomination and inexcusable.