The death penalty poses many important ethical questions in today’s society. I will be addressing the death penalty from two different perspectives, should it be banded in the United States like other countries or is the death penalty something that society should come to terms with. I will argue that while perspective one is strong in that it states those who commit murder need to die, but it fails to fully consider the innocent people that have already died because of law enforcement negligence, perspective two gives a better understanding of innocent people who are charged for committing a crime they did not commit. Therefore, I will suggest doing research on both sides of the story is the best way to approach this question. In the 1960’s
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 The most severe sentence used in our nation is capital punishment, or execution. More than 14,500 confirmed executions have been carried out in America under civil authority. Most Americans will admit that they approve of capital punishment. An “eye for an eye,” if a person can commit a heinous act of murder, or rape he, or she should be punished for that crime by giving his, or her life. The death penalty is considered a deterrent to criminal activity but does it make the execution morally correct or just brutal?
The selected passage talked about who were worthy of praise. The dead left a free state and should be paid a tribute by their valor. The ancestors and the living also contributed inheritance and improvement to the empire. Before praising the dead, the author pointed out “…what principles of action we rose ~ to power, and under what institutions and through what manner of life our empire become great.” 1 According to the speaker’s mind, as the first passage mentioned, “…, when men’s deeds have been brave, they should be honored in deed only…” 2 The reputation of men had nothing to do with the honor of their deeds. A thesis could be made: Men’s brave deeds which should be honored related to their noble virtues and the spirit of courage to fight for their country instead of their fame.
3.05 Hear What I Say! Jared T. Falk The Morality and Justice of Capital Punishment (Speech MLA Format) Why, I ask you should the death penalty be abolished completely from our society? Is capital punishment not justified when the life of an innocent human being is taken by another? Every single one of us grew up under a rule, whether it was administered in schooling, our parents, or church we were all taught to treat others how we wish to be treated. I believe that capital punishment honors life, in the sense that our justice system administers the strongest penalty possible on those convicted of taking the life of another.
Throughout Lincoln’s approach to bring about equality, he did what he thought was right and he never changed what he believed based on what everyone else thought. Throughout the struggle to bring about equal opportunity, the nation change dramatically. The destruction of certain people having more privileges than another person was the main factor in the enlightenment. Unless a man of any class has earned the right to enjoy their power, wealth, position, or immunity, all of the above should be taken away from them. Under all circumstances, the purpose of going through the entire struggle was to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible
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
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.
This is truly a bothersome idea because the capital punishment is irreversible. No matter how many precautions are made, there are always going to be mistakes because decisions are made by humans. If the mistake is acknowledged after the execution, then the state would have committed a crime that’s equivalent to the murder. Since the 1900's, at least 416 innocent people have been sentenced to death penalty in the name of justice. (Popular Misconceptions About the Death Penalty, n.d.).
Ashley Beavers Period 6 9-26-13 The Death Penalty How would you feel if somebody killed your family or harmed them in anyway? Would you want them to be sentenced to the death penalty? Many people agree that the death penalty is the right thing to do but there are others that disagree. If someone kills your loved one you would probably want them to have some sort of punishment. Wouldn't you?