Argument Against The Death Penalty

Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.

Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Why do some view the taking of a life morally correct? These questions are discussed and debated upon in every state and national legislature throughout the country. Advantages and disadvantages for the death penalty exist, and many members of the United States, and individual State governments, have differing opinions. Yet it seems that the stronger arguments, and evidence such as cost effectiveness, should lead the common citizen to the opposition of Capital 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.

Premise 4: We have no right to risk (endanger) lives of the innocent people.Utiliarianists believe that prisoners could escape. Thus the death penalty is the only truly effective way ofachieving societal protection against the continuing threat posed by some convicted murderers. No matterWHAT the crime, WE as Americans have no right to kill another human being. We are not an eye for aneye country.Conclusion: Therefore, it is our moral obligation to retain (keep) the death penalty.Utilitarianists would say the fundamental justification for retaining the death penalty, lies in the fact thatthe death penalty is a uniquely effective deterrent. The death penalty costs multitudes more than what itcosts to keep someone in prison. If we were to work on strengthening our prisons security rather thankilling these convicts we wouldn’t have to worry about escape, the safety of guards, or killing potentiallyinnocent

Capital punishment, the state imposed penalty of death, continues to be one of the most controversial issues in contemporary American public policy. Since the earliest days of its employment in the colonial era until today, citizens have struggles with the issue of when and under what circumstances the taking of a human life by the state can be morally or legally justified. For some opponents of the death penalty, the simple answer is that the taking of a human life is always morally and ethically wrong, even when conducted under the auspices of state authority as a legal punishment. In contrast, proponents of capital punishment have contended with equal fervor that the death penalty is morally justified as a form of retributive justice,

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

Only the most dangerous criminals in the world are faced with society’s ultimate penalty, or at least that is the theory. Capital punishment, commonly referred to as the Death Penalty has been debated for many decades regarding if such a method is ethical. While there are large amounts of supporters for the death penalty as a form of retribution, the process is avoidable financially as taxing for all parties involved. The financial expenses may be better off saved for life imprisonment with an emphasis in restorative justice for victims. Overall, there is unreasonable inefficiency with the capital punishment to justify the taking of another person’s life.

The death penalty is one of the most controversial issues in the United States today. The debate of a life for life is one that has many dimensions and points of views. However, the acceptance of the death penalty is affected by many factors morality, deterrence, retribution, mistakes, cost, race, an income. More specifically the discussion will be based on these three reasons to support the death penalty; the matters of retribution, deterrence and morality.

How is it possible that us as Humans care so deeply about Human Rights and treating everyone equally but still have the Death Penalty applied to humans? Why is the Death Penalty acceptable when authorities perform these procedures but when individuals who are not authority figures basically do the same thing as the death penalty is seen as injustice, cruel, and some may think how sick can their minds be to do injustice things to a human, but even if the authorities can do these procedures. (rewrite the sentence) How can it be any good, how can they not see these individuals has equally as them?

The intent of this paper is to share the views of those who oppose capital punishment. I, for one, am part of the majority that is in support of the death penalty. I am in agreeance of the old saying of “An eye for an eye”. The death penalty is one of the most controversial issues in our criminal justice system. There is an increase in opposition against the death penalty, not only in the United States. Many Americans feel that capital punishment is wrong. It is hard for people to fathom the idea of putting someone else to death. It is not the physical mechanics involved in executions that are hard to handle. It is the emotions involved in carrying out the process. Many feel that the death penalty violates the eight Amendment of a

Many ethical concerns arise when the issues of the death penalty is brought into the public eye. Some people argue it is morally wrong to kill a person while others believe that the authorities should maintain an iron fist and not be lenient. So what are the most common arguments that are used to defend the death penalty as well as attack its validity? (I shall try to avoid religious beliefs because while every religion might have similar practices, not every religion is exactly the same in terms of its views on the discussed issue. Moreover, while the Christian bible stated “thou shall not kill” it also requires a death penalty for wide variety of crimes of crime ranging from doing work on Saturday to murder. Nonetheless, while there are many religion- based objections, one that even non-believers argue is playing the role of God.) Let us focus on a more human-oriented point of view. Common reason against the death penalty include negative effective effects on society, lack of deterrence, value of human life, unfairness and chance of error. Also the family of the family of the prisoner comes into play, in addition to lack of jury convections (Constanzo, Mark). On the other side of the spectrum is justice, vengeance, deterrence, value of human life, cost and safety (Constanzo, Mark). Tough certian aspects of pro’s and con’s intervene such as value of human life, cost and

The death penalty’s main argument is morality. Is it wrong or is it right to sentence someone to death for a crime. The idea of capital punishment stems back from the world’s earliest known societies (Garland, 2011). In the United States today the death penalty is used as form of punishment in 32 states. America is a country of opinion, Americans have their own outlook on everything and the death penalty is no different. Many Americans feel capital punishment is wrong and unethical; while other Americans feel it is ethical and needed.

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.

Supporters of the utilitarian justice model believe that the sentence of an offender should be based on what is good for society whether that is imprisonment, rehabilitation, or to serve as deterrence. This is a “forward looking” model unlike the retributive justice model. The punishment in this model has to be larger than the advantages of committing this crime (Banks, 2013). The utilitarian model seeks to prevent the crime from occurring by becoming a deterrent effect.

Life is sacred. This is an ideal that the majority of people can agree upon to a certain extent. For this reason taking the life of another has always been considered the most deplorable of crimes, one worthy of the harshest available punishment. Thus arises one of the great moral dilemmas of our time. Should taking the life of one who has taken the life of others be considered an available punishment? Is a murderer's life any less sacred than the victim's is? Can capital punishment, the death penalty, execution, legal murder, or whatever a society wishes to call it, be morally justifiable? The underlying question in this issue is if any kind of killing, regardless of reason, can be accepted. In this