A Consistent Ethic Of Life

Capital punishment is one of the most controversial topics in today’s world. Many people believe that it is morally wrong to have capital punishment as a sentence to a crime. People also do believe that it is morally permissible for a severe crime. Capital punishment is also known as the death penalty. It can be given as a sentence when somebody is convicted of an extremely violent crime. The biggest issue that can be seen with this is that somebody could be innocent and sentenced with the death penalty because of the nature of the crime that they have been accused of even if they didn’t commit it. I believe that there is a moral line between using the death penalty and using other forms of punishment.

Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty, is a controversial subject which has been argued for decades due to the ethical decisions involved. People believe the death penalty is the right thing to do and that it is the perfect example of ‘justice’ while others believe that it is immoral and overly expensive. The death penalty is not a logical sentence for criminals, it doesn’t give them the right type of justice and it is immoral.

The death penalty till this day remains to be a very controversial topic. Some people may argue that it should be considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment; others may rebuttal in saying that the death penalty is capital punishment. When visiting the idea of placing someone to death one must bear in mind the possibility of condemning an innocent person through such torture, the brutalizing effect on society it may leave, and the serious psychological trauma that a defendants family and friends may face. Is this really what the justice system is willing to place on the line in order to gain a form of so called justice. I mean reasonably speaking what will anyone gain from such an action. It definitely will not bring the harm to be undone. As stated in the encyclopedia under the theory of judicial torture “ the use of torture was confined to capital crimes, for which the death penalty or mutilation could apply” (PIHLAJAM, 2004). Looking at how the death penalty is conducted people should not be treated like animals, given a due time to be put down. No human being deserves such treatment whether or not his or her offense was so horrific and traumatic. Is that not the lesson being taught to society when the criminal is captured? Yet, the law as a jury of peers, men just like the accused, may cast the same sin upon him. Why should this action be considered in any way to be fair or believed to be capital punishment?

It is cruel to kill a person no matter how horrible the crime they committed is. It shows people that if you do something, the same will be done to you, it is an eye for an eye. This type of justice is completely wrong. The punishment should be geared not only towards scaring others from committing a similar crime, but also to correct the offender and reintegrate him/her back to the society. Therefore, punishment by death does not achieve this objective in any way.

For centuries capital punishment has been used to “punish” criminals for a severe enough crime that they committed. It dates back to hundreds of years ago and has been enacted in many different countries, some that still have it today. Death penalty/capital punishment is the punishment of death an offender receives after having a court hearing and being convicted of a crime (ProCon.org, 2008). Once someone receives a death penalty sentence, they go on death row awaiting their execution. For a very long time, the controversy regarding whether or not the death penalty is ethical or just has been a topic of debate. I believe that the

The death penalty is a punishment given to people who commit heinous crimes. Since 1976, there have been over 1,390 executions. But does that make the death penalty, necessarily, a correct and justifiable form of punishment? “The death penalty is our harshest punishment,” states Ernest van den Haag, author of “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense.” Van den Haag, in his article, argues how the death penalty is effective and should be used. However, Jack Greenberg, James P. Gray, and Jeffery Reiman, all concur that the death penalty should not be used as a punishment for criminals. Jack Greenberg, author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment,” argues how the death penalty is an

The death penalty is a punishment where if a person has committed a crime of such a high caliber (Ex: mass murder) that the only plausible punishment is death by electricity, firing squad or lethal injection. The death penalty been used throughout history like in the french revolution and has been in effect for a long time in countries like the United States. Though it has not always worked as executions of death row inmates have gone haywire leading to an excruciatingly painful death for what is supposed to be quick and clean. Furthermore, there have also been instances in which, people who were executed after receiving the death penalty turned out to be innocent like Cameron Todd Willingham. These problems and more with the capital punishment has and have sparked a public outcry

Capital punishment is also observed to be beneficial for the society because it deters the criminal from committing another crime and it prevents the other criminals from committing the same crime, however there is no scientific research that proves a causal connection or a cause and effect relationship between capital punishment and the commission of a crime. Killing a human being as a deterrent to crime is, in principle, using a human being as a means rather than an ends. If we agree with the fact that killing is wrong except in self-defense and therefore the killed would need to be punished. Then the argument follows that the killer’s punishment is to be killed can be seen as highly contradictory. This just turns into circular reasoning because to kill someone because they killed someone then this circle would just go on and on and people would continue to kill and kill and keep the cycle going. To kill the person who has killed someone close to you is simply to continue the cycle of violence which ultimately destroys the punisher as well as the offender. Executing someone for killing your loved one does not always necessarily give the family closure but may actually bring more pain because than that

In the cases of capital punishment killing can be justified. According to the article, When Murder Is Punished with Death, fewer criminals will murder, “The deterrent power of punishment is axiomatic, criminal law would be meaningless without it” (Jacoby). In

Capital punishment which is also known as the death penalty refers to the court-ordered execution of a prisoner. It is a punishment of a serious crime called the capital offense and generally involves felony murder and more. Not all states have laws that support the death penalty but those that do are prisoners sentenced to death. There are people who agree with the death penalty because people see capital punishment as payment for murder. Those who oppose capital punishment like me argue that the death penalty is unjust, immoral, and indefensible state sanctioned murder of a human being. Even though they have committed a heinous crime, that vengeance is not the answer for healing the grief of victim’s families or communities or other loved ones. It does not act as a deterrent to crime, and is not an acceptable alternative to long-term imprisonment because the death penalty carries the possibility of wrongful execution of an innocent person.

It could be argued that as the child could not possibly survive independently of the mother, at least before approximately four months into the pregnancy, it is not yet an independent human being, but an attachment of the mother, therefore she should be allowed to terminate it, if this is what she wants to do to herself, as opposed to when the child is physically independent of the mother, when any potentially life ending action against it would be inflicted upon the child directly, not its mother (Kellough 35).

The ultimate question surrounding the death penalty continues to be “is it morally right?”. The death penalty is an unjust punishment and too many variables affect the decision for it to ever be truly a truly objective decision. According to the first major study conducted in the US, 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death are innocent. Death itself is one of the worst events that could happen to an individual. Being unable to enjoy the little things in life due to a mistake in the system made by the biased people running the government is unfair to anyone involved. Others may argue that the death penalty being morally unjust is a completely biased statement based on faith instead of fact. This remains invalid because the people deciding the penalties fit for the opposer are humans, and will therefore always be biased no matter how hard he/she tries.

Punishment by death for people convicted of certain crimes also known as the death penalty is unethical. There are currently 31 states including New Hampshire, in the U.S. with the death penalty and 19 states without. The death penalty is immoral and violates human rights. In some parts of the United States we have a biased criminal justice system which can lead to false an unlawful sentence to death. The death penalty also has irreversible outcomes if proven innocent, it doesn’t lower crime rates, and it is very expensive. The death penalty is just contributing to the cycle of violence, retribution is not the answer.

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment is a legal procedure in which a state executes a person for crimes he/she has committed. This punishment has been implemented by many states, and is normally used for atrocious crimes, especially murder. It is also used on crimes against the state such as treason, crimes against humanity, espionage, and violent crimes while other states use it as part of military justice. There are mixed reactions on capital punishment depending on one’s faith, and the state they come from. In my view, I am not in favor of death penalty, as I strongly believe that, death penalty is unacceptable and an inhumane practice for it denies one the right to live. Death penalty does not deter crime, it is an act

No issue posed by capital punishment is more disturbing to the public than the prospect that the government might execute innocent people. Proponents to the death penalty are, of course, also against executing an innocent person (Hook and Kahn 91). Most everyone would agree that killing someone is wrong. Proponents and opponents agree that murder is a heinous act and should be punished. Despite their hatred for those who kill, proponents support the killing of murderers as a just punishment for their deviant behaviors. In this sense, execution can be termed, “legal murder” because “executions shares enough of the characteristics of murder to be counted as part of the general category: it includes a victim who does not want to die, and an agent that nonetheless kills [the victim]” (Yanich 98]. Murder is synonymous with kill, as found in the Britannica- Webster Dictionary. To kill is to deprive one of life or to put one to death and murder implies motive and intent or premeditation. With respect