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
The people that Shelton killed are considered combatants because they support they governmental system and work with it. Based on Just War Theory, the proportionality of killing these people is that their deaths are outweighed by the justice that will bring to the judicial system. Shelton believes the system to be corrupt, focusing instead on conviction rates rather than making sure the right person is placed behind bars. By killing these people Shelton can put a new mindset into the “system” because those affected by the killings will want the right man punished rather since they now know how it feels to be wronged. All the killings made by Shelton were to people who were directly showed how flawed the system was.
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.
Michael Rea March 22, 2011 Koch vs. Bruck "Is capital punishment an adequate and necessary form of payback for the crime of murder? And will it prevent the occurrence of future murders? These are the vital issues argued by Edward I. Koch in his article, "The Death Penalty is Justice," and David Bruck's "No Death Penalty." In my opinion, Koch is able to ideally show the need for capital punishment, while Bruck is ineffective at justifying his stance that the death penalty is an unsuitable punishment for the crime of murder." In "Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life", readers view the opinions toward the death penalty in today's world.
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
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.
Therefore, I agree with euthanasia protestors. Instead of ending someone’s life in order to prevent any more suffering, we should alleviate pain by improving our hospice care and making our healthcare system more affordable. Let us not lose our humanity by valuing life from the best ethical rules possible. In conclusion, the severity and the complexity of the euthanasia debate indicate why euthanasia is the most active area of research in contemporary bioethics. While some people strongly believe that euthanasia should be legalized, other people insist that euthanasia is literally a type of murder.
It has been proven to be cheaper for taxpayers and governments to sentence someone to life rather than to death row, which would provide more funding to go towards more useful things like education and foreign aid that may actually help the number of crimes being committed to decrease. The life of the criminal cannot compensate for the crime committed, two wrongs do not make a right. It’s hypocritical, it condemns killing by killing people. It’s understandable that in some cultures and religions the death penalty may be quite traditional as a way of making someone amenable for the crimes that they have committed. But tradition can change.
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.