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.
Executions may increase murder rates because they raise the general violence level in society and because violence prone people identify with the executioner, not with the target of the death penalty. When someone gets in a conflict with such individuals or challenges his or her authority, he, or she will execute them in the same manner the states executes people who violates its rules. Since capital punishment is brutal, some countries have decided to abolish the cruel acts of punishment. They would rather have the offender remain incarcerated than to hand down such a brutal
Some crimes are so culpable that death is the only suitable penalty. I believe that the death penalty should be put into effect and if a human kills another human being, they should pay the crime. If someone has enough nerve to take the lives of others, then they too should have their life taken from them. Those are the people that simply do not deserve to live. Life is our most precious possession.
Based on the Best Bet theory we can assume that the risk of losing one’s own life and any potential to ever see freedom again is just as good of a punishment as any other. If not using capital punishment reduces how many are deterred and does not reduce the number of innocent lives taken we too are responsible for the loss of those lives. We are responsible not only for our own direct actions but also for our inaction and the consequences of it. Objections to the death Penalty: Objection 1: “Capital punishment is a morally unacceptable thirst for revenge.” Revenge is a personal response, done out of anger and hatred, which inflicts harm to the perpetrator. Retributivism is an unbiased and impartial response to a perpetrator that has wronged another.
When a black person murders another black, it’s barely seen that the defendant receives capital punishment. It seems like the systems only really cares about white murder victims. Receiving capital punishment for being a murder is wrong, even a criminal deserves to live their life. They will just have to life their life in jail. Giving someone the death penalty is murder so, that’s like saying the prosecutor should be
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 is defined as the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime. It is said that capital punishment is inhumane as it involves the killing of people. It concerns a life created by God and raises the question on the value of life and human rights. That is why several countries have started to abolish the aforementioned rule and have used the life sentence for the same cases as that of capital punishment. Countries that still wish to use the death penalty use it for very severe crimes/offences and are likely to be less economically developed countries such that of Ethiopia, Nigeria and Malaysia.Compared to the previous times, the death penalty is now reserved as a punishment for severe crimes such as murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice.
By reserving the ultimate penalty of death for those who wantonly kill, we are clearly proclaiming our special reverence for life. It is society’s ultimate means of selfdefense. The death of a criminal can certainly be justified if it prevents the future deaths of innocent victims. Since death is the greatest punishment a society can impose, it stands to reason that it is the most powerful way to deter those who would commit a crime. Economist Isaac Ehrlich compared the murder rate in the United States with the rate of executions between 1933 and 1967.
Real justice requires people to suffer for what they did and to suffer in a way that is appropriate for the crime. For example, for murder they should be murdered in the same way. By executing convicted murderers they won’t have a chance of doing the same to someone else. The very small chance of executing the wrong person is balanced by the benefits to society of putting off other murders who were thinking about doing the same. Also, DNA testing and other methods of crime scene science can now be so precise and can eliminate any uncertainty to whether someone is guilty or not.
The author feels that the death penalty is a racist institution and kills the poor. It is more common for an African American to be killed then a White person. It is also said that African Americans who kill white people are more likely to be sentenced to death, then if a white person kills a black person. A study brought forward the information that murderers whose victims are white are 139% more likely to get the death penalty then if their victim was white. Shalom wonders what this is saying about our current system that is in force (10).