Capital Punishment Essay

Many people question the need for the death penalty, the execution of those who have committed certain crimes, as a capital punishment. For instance, the author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment”, Jack Greenburg, who is a Professor of Law at Columbia University, argues that the death penalty does not benefit society and is not necessary. Likewise, Kevin Johnson, writer of “Study Finds No Evidence Death Penalty Deters Crime”, also argues against the use of the death penalty by pointing out the flaws in the common research of deterrence. On the other hand, some may also argue for the many aids the death penalty offers. Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy at Fordham University, Ernest Van den Haag, with his “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense”, and authors James M. Reams and Charles T. Putnam, with their article, “Making a Case for the Deterrence Effect of Capital Punishment”, both give arguments for the grander justice the death penalty offers. While each of these articles give very well thought out claims for the necessity of the death penalty, using arguments including racism, and deterrence, Van den Haag’s claim gives the clearest and best arguments.

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.

"We partly know who those are whom it has not deterred; but who is there who knows whom it has deterred, or how many human beings it has saved who would have [without the threat of the death penalty] lived to be murderers?" For reasons such as these, it is difficult to use the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the death penalty to either support or oppose its application. Basing the permissibility of the death penalty is similar to gambling; its proponents gamble with the lives of criminals that it does, in fact, have a deterrence effect; it's opponents gamble with the lives of potential victim that it does not.

It is more reasonable to utilize the death penalty than to abolish it. The death penalty should not be abolished because (1) it deters people from committing murder and (2) because the death penalty gives peace of mind to the victims and their families and puts an end to the crime.     

The first argument that I shall contend with is that capital punishment does not deter crime. Opponents of capital punishment say the death penalty is not necessary. Other countries that no longer have the death penalty have not experienced an increase in the number of murders. The idea is that the death penalty does not deter crime. Countries such as Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, and Belgium have not carried out executions since the early part of the century, yet these countries have not experienced a rise in crimr rates (Block, 1983). However, deterrence is not the question when you are looking at the retributive value of capital punishment. In short, deterrence can only work if the threat of punishment is combined with the conviction that the forbidden acts are not only illegal and therefore punishable but immoral. Without the conviction of morality, the easily frightened will not break the law, but the fearless will break the law, the irrational will break the law, and all others will break the law.

The death penalty has both supporters and non-supporters. The following essay will not solve the issue; I will only try to persuade the reader to understand my point of view. The death penalty is justified in certain cases such as Mcveigh Vs State of Indiana; however it is unjustified in other cases, including Bloodsworth Vs State of Maryland. The death penalty is a must, especially in today’s society. With the increase in vicious crimes today, the government must act just as harsh with our justice system to try and prevent these types of crimes. Non-supporters argue that the death penalty is inhumane and should be considered murder. People of this malicious caliber must be dealt with in the same way, an eye for an eye. Putting these

     Capital punishment is a very controversial issue, but it is a just penalty for murderers. Murderers forfeit their lives for taking the life of another. Capital punishment deters criminals from committing violet crimes. Incapacitating criminals is also another form of deterrence. The death penalty removes harmful criminals from society. In doing this, people can feel much safer knowing that there is one less criminal on the streets. The death penalty is also more economical than life without parole. Capital punishment is good for society, and should be used in a more timely manner.

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.

As of January 1, 2010, 3,261 people live on death row (“Death”). Fewer than 3,261 people live in my small town of Belle Plaine, so to me this number is outrageous. Inmates that wait on the death penalty jail create a problem for everyone in the country. If we would put these inmates through the death penalty quickly, we could take the problem away from the country. Why do we keep murderers and criminals on death row around? People argue the controversial topic of the death penalty very thoroughly, and address all sides. On one side people argue that we would save money and the death penalty sets an example for other criminals, while on the opposition people argue that life without parole is cheaper, capital punishment is morally

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.

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

Many positions can be defended when debating the issue of capital punishment. In Jonathan Glover's essay "Executions," he maintains that there are three views that a person may have in regard to capital punishment: the retributivist, the absolutist, and the utilitarian. Although Glover recognizes that both statistical and intuitive evidence cannot validate the benefits of capital punishment, he can be considered a utilitarian because he believes that social usefulness is the only way to justify it. Martin Perlmutter on the other hand, maintains the retributivist view of capital punishment, which states that a murderer deserves to be punished because of a conscious decision to break the law with knowledge of the

When the term capital punishment comes up, consideration must be given to the history of mankind in relation to such form of retribution. From the beginning of recorded history, the death penalty has existed and for many crimes other then first degree murder. Before anyone takes a FOR or AGAINST position on capital punishment, perhaps we should take a look at the actual facts and statistics on this controversial topic. Then, with all this in mind, take a dialectical approach, with the idea of death itself and see if we can come up with a clearer understanding of the reason for such actions to be accepted in our society. However, if a stand needed to be taken to keep the death penalty or abolish it, one must

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