An Eye For A Eye Worth It?

Nations can do without the death penalty for heinous crimes committed. The actions of taking a person’s life due to their crimes casts a significant burden upon the person responsible for the convict to meet their maker. Applying the death penalty to someone that stole innocent lives is not justified, one death does not bring back the lives of those already lost. “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”

Society needs to change the eye for an eye mentality in order for civilization to advance past the revenge philosophy that leads to an endless cycle of violence (ACLU, 2012). The American Civil Liberties Union (2012) says that capital punishment is a violation of civil liberties and goes against everything that our democratic system stands for. The death penalty system in the United States is applied in an unfair manner against people based on how much money they have and the race of the victim (ACLU, 2012). African Americans are more likely to be executed than white people, especially if their victim was white (ACLU, 2012).

     Why should the death penalty be abolished? The death penalty should be abolished because of many reasons. Many people believe the saying, 'an eye for an eye'. But when will people realize that just because someone may have killed a loved one that the best thing for that person is to die also. People don't realize that they are putting the blood of another person life on their hands. This makes them just as guilty as the person who committed the crime: the only difference is that they didn't use weapon except their mouth to kill them. The death penalty should be abolished because it is racist, punishes the poor, condemns those who are innocent to death, and is a cruel punishment.

People that support the death penalty argued that death penalty is righteously justified when enforced in murder especially with disturbing elements such as for multiple murder, child murder, serial killing, torture murder, mass murder, terrorism, massacre or genocide. It is said that the death penalty for murder is and should be "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

As Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." Others claim that the death penalty should be allowed because it’s only justice if the murderer gets punished for his crime. Many don’t consider it fair that a murderer should get off easy even after taking a human’s life. People believe that letting criminals “off the hook easy” sends a bad message that the criminal’s life is worth more than the victim’s life.

Mahatma Gandhi echoed the phrase, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Capital punishment has been a process of punishment since time before Christ. Capital punishment or the death penalty, is the process of punishing, an individual, by execution for committing a crime. One moral theory to justify this process of punishment is cited in Mark Timmons’s book Disputed Moral Issues: A Reader. The consequentialist theory states, “A specific punishment for a certain crime is morally justified if and only if it would likely produce at least as much overall intrinsic value as would any other alternative punishment.” (Timmons, 535) However, this theory has multiple issues in justifying the death penalty, which would be consider a negative consequence. These issues are execution of innocent people, financial cost of executions, and the belief that executions are a deterrence.

Punishing crime is an important task that our society must complete however we should be able to do so in a just and fair manner.” Under revised laws, most states now use a [two part] trial system, where the first determines a defendant’s guilt, and the second determines the sentence of a guilty defendant. In most trials Jurors are usually only given the option of either sentencing a convicted felon to life in prison or death” (1 Evans Kim). As a report by Kim Evans shows the death penalty shows that it follows a dangerous eye for an eye philosophy, which forces us to ask the question if we should have a system like that in a modern society. The answer is no and an article written by Christoph Heyns and Juan Mendez perfectly states the reasons why.

Hannah Palmer Mrs.Ford English 5-6 2 February 2015 The Lifestyle and Mindset of a Serial Killer “I didn’t want to hurt them, I only wanted to kill them,”, said David Berkowitz, the son of Sam. David is one of the many American serial killers that have left our civilization with a destructive impact. The creation of a serial killer goes all the way back to their childhood, which leads them to have a ritual.

Capital punishment on a balance does more harm than good. Even in the case of someone who has done the evilest things, forgiveness should remain. Our society cannot overcome violence with another form of violence. With everything that has been going in our surrounding – shooting and act of terrorism, our goal is to build a culture of life and solidarity with one

The death penalty is under a theory call “Just Deserts” Radelet and Akers (1997) suggest that the citizens who commit cirimes should be put under an execution for tributive reasons. These citizens that commit crime should suffer, the effects of life imprisonment are not enough for murdering a person. Some views are worthy to go under a debate, but no research can tell us if an issue is right or wrong. No studies can answer the question of what these citizens or criminals deserve, nor settle debates surrounding the death penalty.

Subsequently, this leaves the common people, with a very contemplative question in mind, should the U.S. utilize the death penalty for brutal crimes? This is not a matter that can be resolved in days, weeks, or months, this will take years because of the pros and cons on the social aspect of the death penalty. To start of this controversial debate, the most popular motive is the concept of “an eye for an eye” or if a

In the argument for the death penalty, we take a look at “lex talionis”, the eye for an eye principle. Humans deserve praise for good deeds, and punishment for bad ones. This punishment could arguably range from the harshness of death, to a smack on the head, but in either example, the punishment must fit the crime. The eye for an eye principle ensures that no matter the crime, there is a just and understood punishment for all people. If we take the lex talion literally, and the criminals do deserve those punishments, but in turn, we must be prepared to deliver those punishments. Executing murderers prevents them from committing their crime again, and thus protects innocent victims. However, punishment does not apply itself to the culprit after

A well known saying which explains this theory is, ‘An eye for an eye’. This quote, ‘An eye for an eye’, is a subjective viewpoint because it was once said by the Indian, Mahatma Gandhi once said, ‘An eye of an eye will only make the whole world blind. This is a very important quote because it states that the people who commit crimes should not receive punishments fitting to the crime they commit. I personally think that this quote should be taken in to account and

Last but not least, from a sociologic perspective, capital punishment does not work as intended, to deter crime rate, rather, it might brutalize individuals, at the same time does nothing good to the victim’s family other than brutal vengeance. The origin of death penalty is served as a vehicle to put a warning for those potential future criminals that such kind of behavior will lead to death. However, so far, no clear evidence can be seen that capital punishment, as a mechanism of deterrent, actually cut down the local crime rate. Ironically, a reversal trend was found by Death Penalty Information Center (2010) in the USA that the death penalty leads to an increase in local murder rate. To die might be too easy for the mindless murderers. Also, for the relatives or friends of criminals put into death through capital punishment, they are more likely to be

From an early age, children are taught that murder is morally wrong. In today’s complex society that is impeded by unsettling periods of civil unrest, it is an expectation for everyone to acknowledge and accept that murder is one of the worst crimes individuals can commit. Perhaps it can be said that the death penalty is one of our legal system’s biggest contradictions of itself, as, if someone commits murder (or another heinous crime of that caliber), such ‘murderers’ will, in states that have capital punishment laws, be sent to Death Row and ultimately murdered in order to prevent potential future crimes by such perpetrators. I believe that the death penalty is wrong not only as it is immoral to take a life, but also, such ineffective laws waste money and do not deter crime.