Capital Punishment Essay

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.

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

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.

Capital punishment is the execution of a perpetrator for committing a heinous crime (homicide), and it is a hotly debated topic in our society. It has always been a belief for some that if another person wrongs them, they should have the right to take revenge against that person. In the present day, this view still remains, but has been toned down by laws that state the rights of the accused and have developed punishments for offenders. Many, me included, still believe that those punishments are not harsh enough and allow criminals to take advantage of them, knowing that if caught, the punishment is not near enough to make it wise to simply avoid the risk. I believe that capital punishment is an effective

The number of individuals executed via the Death Penalty peaked in 1999 and has been receding at a dramatic rate. As it is becoming less frequently used, its necessity and morality has been called into question. Both sides of the argument offer convincing arguments; however, mounting evidence shows it is cost-prohibitive, it fails to act as a deterrent, it is racially biased, and that the justice system is fallible. I will analyze both sides critically to try and gain insight into why we are part of the 29% of countries who choose to retain it as a form of punishment. Moreover, the two ethical theories I will use to carry out this analysis involve the Harm Principle and Moral Relativism. Both ethical theories can support the pro and con side, so I will be using both as I look at each side of the debate. Using the principles outlined in the Harm Principle and Moral Relativism, I will analyze the morality of capital punishment and access which side the theories gravitate towards.

Is the death penalty really a rational and effective way to respond to the crimes of certain prisoners? Thirty one percent of society believes we should not keep the death penalty, while others believe that the death penalty doesn’t really keep crime from happening. Of the thirty one percent, many believe that executing offenders of the law only runs away from the issue at hand. Also, if society thinks about it, ending the penalty would cost less both physically and mentally. Lastly, abolishment of the penalty would help rid any of the negative and humane issues at hand: this involves the biblical verse; thou shalt not kill, and the national human rights law; article 3, and 5 of the Declaration of Independence. Is the death penalty going

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

Capital punishment also known as the “death penalty” is one of the many sanctions used for violent criminal whom are convicted of heinous crimes. It is a government sanction in which criminals are put to death by the state government. There’s an on-going debate regarding the pros and cons of the death penalty. There are some individuals whom support the penalty and also a large number of individuals whom are totally against the death penalty. There is no clear decision whether the death penalty is effective and provides a sense of deterrence or whether it’s simply a costly mistake. But is the death penalty influencing others not to commit crime or is just a sanction that cost a lot and no one pays attention to?

Though the modern world is very sympathetic to the concept of human rights issues, death penalty as a form of capital punishment has still been in practice in the world. During 2001, at least 3048 people were executed in 31 countries as well as at least 5265 people were sentenced to death in 68 countries. It is very interesting to see that some advanced countries, which are pioneer to the protection and promotion of human rights and also very vocal to the human rights situation in the developing world, do impose death penalty, even on children.

In society today there are murders committed everyday. Everyday the people who commit these crimes are found guilty in a court of law and sentenced in prison. Some even get chances for parole. What the courts should do is take every murderer, give every one of them the death penalty, and follow through with it. The death penalty should be legal in all 50 states and carried through when given out as a sentence. Gary Gilmore faced a firing squad at the Utah State Prison on January 17, 1977. There have been 55 murders in that state during 1976. During 1977, in wake of the Gilmore execution, there were 44 murders: a 20 percent decrease. As you can see, the execution had some effect on the murder rate in Utah (Solotaroff 2001).

Hundreds of murderers are put into jail and then let out several years later. They say they have learned their lesson, but yet when they do get out they commit more crimes. Thus, sending them back into jail. The only way to make sure these ruthless murderers don’t commit these crimes again is by capital punishment. As the Bible says, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. " If someone commits a capital offense, they should receive a capital punishment, because the state won’t have to pay for the criminal’s lifetime in jail, it provides the most complete retribution and condemnation, and crime rates will begin to drop.

a) Through the Utilitarian perspective, Bedau is a firm believer in the removal of capital punishment; Bedau thinks that no reason is good enough justify the more severe punishment like death penalty on the moral ground, and no evidence of deterrence and prevention is sufficient enough to support the retribution of justice to keep capital punishment. Bedau have raised several arguments direct to the issue of death penalty: The morality of self-defense and death penalty; the efficiency prevention and the deterrence through capital punishment; then finally the inequity treatment towards the racially disadvantaged and poor.

The rehearsal of the death penalty has been experienced throughout the years since the Middle Ages, but as the years go on, many countries have eliminated capital punishment either in law or in practice. This, because of people disagreeing with the fact of taking someone’s life away regardless the gravity of the felony they have committed. As it is written in the 14th amendment “…Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Even though in other hand, there are many people who believe that the death penalty is essential.

The death penalty is a tough debate and an overwhelming argument in this country. We as Americans put Timothy McVeigh to death by lethal injection just three months ago. Arguments can be made for and against the death penalty, but this is not the problem. Capital Punishment is supposed to be a deterrent to crime, but is the death penalty really a deterrent? Capital Punishment is not a deterrent for crime, and the effects of Capital Punishment are actually hurting the American citizens. Capital Punishment affects the American citizens by having those citizens pay millions of dollars for death row inmates, and these criminals affect those same citizens because the

Capital punishment is a very controversial subject in today’s world. People should think about what will happen to them if they commit a crime, and the consequences that will follow the crime. Society has enough problems to deal with without people committing crimes, Therefore capital punishment is desperately needed.