Capital Punishment Essay

In “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives”, written and published by David B. Mulhausen on September 29, 2014, Mulhausen speaks of the reasons why the death penalty is a proper way to bring murderers to justice. He believes that “some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties” (Mulhausen). Not only does he believe that the death penalty is useful to set criminals to justice, but he also believes that the enforcement of the death penalty deters crime rates.

Across America a battle of morals rages over the death penalty. Like many other controversial issues that consume our society, the issue of the death penalty is not easily defined. Some people feel that one should reap what they sow. However, the issue is more complex than the eye for an eye standard. With the death penalty in place, our country is stumbling down a twisted path with numerous complications nationwide.

Capital Punishment is an issue that has been argued over from the dinner table in

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.

Many strong cases can be made in principle for and against capital punishment. The argument that is in favor is based on justice, and the nature of a moral community, which requires that each person has to respect the life and liberty of others. Those who commit vicious crimes immediately

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 deterrence theory suggests that a rational person will avoid criminal behavior if the severity of the punishment outweighs the benefits of the crime; therefore or perhaps, as a result, most criminals would think twice before committing a crime if their own lives were at risk. However, studies of this effect have failed to produce enough evidence to support capital punishment as being more effective than the threat of long prison sentences. This theory also does not account for mental illness or the fact of that some capital crimes are committed in such an emotional state that the perpetrator did not think about the possible

"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.

His second argument is that the crime rate has plunged. When crime is high, public support for the death penalty is strong, but in times of relative calm, public opinion does not favor the death penalty. When public support fades, the courts are less likely to sentence criminals to death. Judges need support to remain in office, and flying in the face of what is popular does not garner votes.

Although capital punishment opponents would argue otherwise, there is undeniable proof that capital punishment is in fact a deterrent to committing crimes with that would warrant this sentence. One of the most basic instincts

     Another argument for capital punishment is for vengeance/justice. Many people feel that killing convicted murderers will satisfy their need for justice and/or vengeance. They feel that certain crimes are so heinous that executing the criminal is the only reasonable response (Robinson 1).

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

Capital punishment is a very controversial topic, both in the present and in history. Although it is argued to be an effective deterrent against severe crimes and gives closure to the victim’s family, the death penalty often incorrectly targets innocent people, costs extra money, and sends the wrong message about killing.

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