A Philosophical Approach to Capital Punishment Essay

Since the earliest times, man has struggled with the concept of justice. The controversy of capital punishment has weighed on the minds of humans since the beginning. When we are wronged it is our natural instinct to demand compensation. This thirst for revenge can be seen in the earliest civilizations and societies. Ancient Hammurabi code states “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (History of the World). For many people this little axiom seems fair. Others however, think otherwise and warn of a blind and toothless community. What is it about capital punishment that divides so many Americans? Is it the possibility of an innocent man being executed too much of a risk? Should our current

Now I would like to give you a few examples of famous, and not so famous cases

The Death penalty has been a controversial subject since the beginning of time. People are concerned about the morality of the death penalty thus making it a debatable subject. Because of this, James Freeman, columnist for USA Today, decided to write an editorial on the subject of “Does America need the death penalty?” While being a writer for USA Today, one would think that he would effectively use the appeals of rhetoric (ethos, pathos, and logos), but in fact he does not and concludes with a poorly writing argument.

I live in a state where capital punishment is still being practiced. In fact, I live thirty minutes away from a prison that executes the death penalty. Are we playing God by controlling who does not deserve to live? How can we kill anyone who is no longer a threat to the society? Most have committed terrible crimes in order to get the death penalty, but there are those that were wrongfully convicted. The law system is not perfect, it will never be perfect. Sure, they can get numerous appeals before they are executed. If there is no new evidence or new technology to prove their innocence, there is no use in giving them any number of tries before being executed. It was said that it cost more to execute the death penalty (from the time of

The death penalty is currently used by 34 states and is used by the federal government for punishing federal crimes. And in most cases the death penalty is used when the criminal has been convicted of murder. However, two people have been sentenced to death for the rape of a minor. The definition of the death penalty is: execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense. This begs the question does the government have the right to take away someone’s life? And if so is it ethical and moral? Overall the goal of the Criminal Justice system is to give the right sentence and protect the people. Even though the death penalty does this, there are better more efficient ways to accomplish that

The Death Penalty Discussion In today’s world terrible crimes are being committed daily. Many people believe that these criminals deserve one fate; death. Death penalty is the maximum sentence used in punishing people who kill another human being and is a very controversial method of punishment. Capital punishment is a legal infliction of death penalty and since ancient times it has bee used to punish a large variety of offences.

One of the longest ongoing ethical conflicts in political history is the idea of ending one’s life for the sake of justice. It has stood the test of time over gun control, church and state, or even abortion. Consequently, being an issue of controversy is will most likely not be resolved any time in the near future. Many issues contribute to why there is such diversity. Most controversial subjects are brought into the light after something happening that relates to it. Capital punishment is one issue that, for the most part, is always a topic of interest. There are many extremists on each side of the argument, and there are also many issues that make up this debate. The constitutionality of capital punishment is one of the most debated issues. It’s a question of ethics and of its effectiveness.

The death penalty has become a heavily debated topic in society, due to the uncertainty of its moral context. Supporters of the death penalty reason that those who have committed blameworthy crimes should have their lives go worse as a result of their actions. They believe in retribution. Protestors of the death penalty believe that it is counterproductive. They say that by legalizing the behavior that the law is trying to prevent, which is killing, they are being hypocritical. William Baude’s article raises the question of whether or not the death penalty is constitutional. The death penalty has plenty of ethical, legal, and moral matters associated with it. The moral dilemma of the death penalty can be viewed from deontological and utilitarian perspectives. Both theories allow the death penalty to be a morally acceptable punishment, but the difference is the reason behind each theory.

This country is determined to prove that killing someone under certain circumstances is acceptable, when in all reality there can be no rationalization for the taking of another human life.  Killing is murder.  It is as simple as that.  There have been so many different controversies surrounding this debate that often, the issues become clouded in false statistics and slewed arguments.  The basic fact remains that killing is morally and ethically wrong.  This fact does not disappear by simply changing the term "murder" to "capital punishment".  The act is still the taking of a life.  On these grounds, the death penalty should be abolished.

Burgess, Regehr & Roberts (2013), lamented “The Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, controlled the use of capital punishment by prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment” (p. 175). The justice system has valid alternatives to the death penalty, such as life imprisonment without parole, that constitute adequate punishment even for the most repugnant crimes. Moreover, it is dangerous to engage in ethical equivalencies and hierarchically rank human beings; the point should not be to judge whose life is more vulnerable, but rather to affirm that all human life must be valued. A system that ends a human existence cannot stand in a righteous and just society. The solution is for the justice system to provide remedy to victims, not vengeance. Moreover, this view fails to give due credence to the reality that the death penalty system has not been and cannot be proven to be a successful deterrent, is more expensive than relevant alternatives because of the appellate process, is subject to human error, and is often riddled with economic and racial bias in its application. The irrevocable nature of the death penalty renders it an unsustainable and indefensible remedy in an imperfect justice system. What should be done to the death penalty is not an intellectual exercise. The death penalty can divide and damage families, due to the fact that death is final and because individuals have deeply held feelings about the morality and utility of executions, unlike any other punishment the death penalty creates irreconcilable conflict amongst the surviving family members of murder

The Ethics of Capital Punishment Ethics is "the study of standards of right and wrong; that part of philosophy dealing with moral conduct, duty and judgement. '[1] Capital Punishment is 'the death penalty for a crime. '[2] The word "capital" in "capital punishment" refers to a person's head as in the past; people were often executed by severing their head from their body.

Almost all nations in the world either have the death sentence or have had it at one time. It was used in most cases to punish those who broke the laws or standards that were expected of them. Since the death penalty wastes tax money, is inhumane, and is largely unnecessary it should be abolished in every state across the United States. The use of the death penalty puts the United States in the same category as countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia which are two of the world’s worst human rights violators (Friedman 34). Lauri Friedman quotes, “Executions simply inject more violence into an already hostile American society.”

Does taking another’s life actually avenge that of another? The disciplinary act of capital punishment, punishment through death, has been a major debate in the United States for years. Those in support of capital punishment believe that it is an end to the reoccurrence of a repeat murderer. The public has, for many years, been in favor of this few and pro-death penalty. Yet as time goes on, records show a decrease in the public and the state’s support of the continuation of capital punishment. Those against capital punishment believe it is an immoral, spends taxpayers’ money improperly, and does not enforce a way to rehabilitate criminals and/or warn off future crimes.

Should one person have the right to end another human's life? It is a question most people have the answer for when it comes to capital punishment. Capital punishment is known to some people one of the cruelest punishment to humanity. Some people believe giving a person the death penalty doe's not solve anything. While other's believe it is payback to the criminal for the crime they have committed. There have been 13,000 people executed since the colonial times, among 1900 and 1985 there were 139 innocent people sentence to death only 23 were executed. In 1967 lack of support and legal challenges cut the execution rate to zero bringing the practice to a complete end by 1972. Although the supreme court authorized its resumption in 1976

It is the the duty of the government to provide security for all individuals. Therefore, it is only a necessity, but also an obligation to get rid of those who impose threat or harm to any individual. Capital punishment is not always the most appropriate solution, but given the circumstances, it may be the most effective way to deal with criminals who threaten society.