A Defense of the Death Penalty Louis P. Pojman The death penalty serves as both a deterrent for would be murderers and a fitting punishment for those who intentionally and out of malice take the life of another human being. Retribution: It is sometimes argued that the death penalty serves as a form of revenge for the victims of heinous crimes. For those who argue from this stance, revenge is never the proper method for assigning punishment because it is done out of anger and with the intent of inflicting harm upon another human being. Vengeance itself is not the basis for designating the death penalty. Instead retribution is justification enough, although it may be accompanied by feelings of anger and hatred.
There is a moral difference between Shelton’s killing of his attackers and that of his other victims. Darby and Ames caused personal harm to Shelton and thus gave him the moral right to try and prevent any other future pain that could be caused by these men, but the other victims were combatants in the war that Shelton waged against the “system”. When looking at Darby and Ames, Shelton takes a more utilitarian approach when dealing with their killings. The government “system” is supposed to punish those who are wrong. But in the trial of Darby and Ames, only Ames was punished severely while Darby was allowed to go free.
In contrast to Scalia I think he has good points but he needs a better argument than the judical system has faults. Scalia is for the death penalty. She thinks about the victims in the crimes. She agrees that there is a lot of pian done to the victims however she is not considering all the pain the prisoners will go threw also. This “cocktail” is not just a shot and that’s it, she should know that already.
In the reading, “Brock grants that voluntary euthanasia, whether active or passive, is the deliberate killing of an innocent person” (164). In a sense, he states this may not always be wrong and also explains that when actively killing someone who wants to die really is not different from just allowing a patient to die, on a moral basis. He argues, on the premises of permitting euthanasia, that the potential good consequences outweigh the potential bad
And who then gets to take the life of that person, and so on. Mahatma Gandhi who was the respected leader of the Indian Independence Movement once said “an eye for an eye would make the whole world blind”. Society’s views and opinions on capital punishment nowadays are mostly in favor of abolishing the death penalty, which outweighs those who have an opposing opinion and believe capital punishment is in fact morally correct. And the fact that 139 of the 196 countries of the world have abolished the death penalty really just confirms that it is an inhumane and inexcusable way of bringing justice to those who have broken laws and ethics. 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.
1. Do you think the protagonist, “Kevin,” in this story was guilty of the crimes he committed? Why or why not? I believe Kevin was guilty and I believe the judge was spot on with her explanation. It is true that he could not control it, but when he knew it was wrong he should have went for help.
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.
... We cannot know whether the murderer on death row suffers more than his victim suffered; however, unlike the murderer, the victim deserved none of the suffering inflicted. ... Although penalties can be unwise, repulsive, or inappropriate, and those punished can be pitiable, in a sense the infliction of legal punishment on a guilty person cannot be unjust. ... To regard the
Both sides have been pretty stubborn in their views, the reason why we haven’t reached a decision as a whole. The supporters generally state the pros fairly similarly. They usually include the fact that public executions of criminals would serve as a viable crime deterrent. The logic behind this seems solid, as it would definitely keep those who maybe have a crime in mind or the potential for one from doing so, and thinking twice. Of course it wouldn’t completely stop the crimes, they will always happen.
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.