Capital Punishment Satire

Edward I. Koch uses his essay “The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?” to defend capital punishment. He believes that justice for murderous crimes is essential for the success of the nation. The possibility of error is of no concern to Koch and if would-be murderers can be deterred from committing these heinous crimes, he feels the value of human life will be boosted and murder rates will consequently plummet (475-479). Koch makes a valiant effort to express these views, yet research contradicts his claims and a real look at his idea of justice must be considered in order to create a fair nation for all.

The legitimacy of the use of capital punishment has been tarnished by its widespread misuse , which has clouded our judgment regarding the justifiability of the death penalty as a punitive measure. However, the problems with capital punishment, such as the “potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness and racial skew" , are not a basis for its abolition, as the world of homicide suffer from these problems more acutely. To tackle this question, one must disregard the currently blemished universal status quo and purely assess the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty as a punitive measure. Through unprejudiced examination of the death penalty and its consequential impacts, it is evident that it is a punishment that effectively serves its retributive, denunciatory, deterrent, and incapacitative goals.

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

Many states have gotten rid of death penalty as their maximum form of punishment. In May of 2015 Nebraska did the same, but there is a new rising question. Should Nebraska voters reintroduce the death penalty as our maximum form of punishment? Yes, they should. First it would show force. It would show that nothing bad will be tolerated. Second it is what they deserve. They aren’t just in the place they are for stealing a candy bar. And finally it will get them off the road. Those type of people facing this casinero are there for a bad reason, and should not be seen of the streets in public again. Let me explain to you how it will show force.

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

I do not think that the death penalty should be allowed. Anyway why not just have a life in prison without parole. It might just be cheaper to kill someone, but if it is not right for murders to kill why is it right for the government to kill. Think of it there could be many things worse than the death penalty, just imagine living with all that guilt. Also think if a child killed and got a death penalty 13 year olds have been tried as adults. So if a 13 year was killed because of a death penalty why they have to die young, because the guilt would build up over the years and be worse than the death penalty. So all in all a sentence to life in prison without parole could be worse than a death penalty.

“The use of the death penalty in the United States has been rapidly declining since the end of the 1990s” (Dieter, 2015). This is contrast to the believes of the Founding Fathers where “the death penalty was widely accepted at the time the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified” (Gardner & Anderson, 2014). While the crimes have not changed, aspects of capital punishment which were once viewed as constitutional, today are deemed cruel and unusual. The prevailing liberal view sees the death penalty as morally unjustified and a vengeful form retribution. “It is the most brutal form of state power, requires massive state administrations and it costs significantly more than life imprisonment which is both more humane and equally effective” (Davidson, 2015). They point to the lack of deterrence it provides and highlight the racial and gender biases of the criminal justice system and the potential for the execution of the innocent by the State. In contrast, those in favor of capital punishment see it as a valid, moral and constitutional punishment as punishments should be imposed in proportion to the crime. The death penalty is reserved for the most violent of crimes in society and without it, justice is not achieved for victims and their families. The death penalty must be viewed again as a valid, moral and legal

The death penalty is a serious punishment in the United States with many citizens being split on the idea of whether the practice is moral or not. American sociologist and social critic Ernest Van Den Haag, defends the death penalty by looking at the topic through consequentialist and retributivist perspectives. In this essay, I am going to argue that Ernest van den Haag is accurate in his belief in the morality of the death penalty.

Few issues in the United States today are as emotionally charged and controversial as the death penalty. Formally know as capital punishment, the death penalty has been hotly debated not only as a legal issue, but as a religious, ethical, and political one, historically as well as in the present day. Although many states currently administer the death penalty, Texas has been put in the spot light this past year because of the recent presidential race. The moral question of whether or not it is right to kill another human being is ever-present in today's society. However, when looking at it from a political standpoint, one must also consider whether or

Numerous who are not for the death penalty may recommend that death penalty is "merciless and bizarre" and along these lines is not protected, but rather this contention is practically good for nothing when we consider that we are not a general public that draws and quarters lawbreakers or torments them before at long last slaughtering them. Most expresses that do support the demonstration of the death penalty have deadly infusion; a for all intents and purposes easy discipline, along these lines making it much more moral than different structures honed somewhere else. Beside this, the individuals who might utilize the "coldblooded and uncommon" contention are not considering the unlimited measure of torment brought on to the families and companions

The society constantly tries to reason with an effective way to respond to violence. Differences in opinion on the use of death as punishment arise from differences in religious, ethical, cultural, and morale perspectives. The role of death as a punishment for an offence has not been solved today, and remains a dilemma for the citizenry's political, legal, social, and religious thought. This is because an answer to the question "is the death penalty effective?" is not clear or evident today, as it was in the 18th century. Many studies have tried to create a persuasive response and evidence that official state killings make citizens and law enforcement safe. Other studies prove that death does not make the society safer, as illustrated with crime reports in New York in 1977. The argument is that death penalty only increases the rate of crime, since in NY, forty-four officers were killed prior to the 1977 death penalty, and eighty officers were killed in the decade after the death penalty (Carlson, Elshtain & Owens, 2004). Given the differing and perplexing views on the death penalty, this paper uses the rogerian argument to present valid reasons for and against the death penalty.

Murder, a common occurrence in American society, is thought of as a horrible, reprehensible atrocity. Why then, is it thought of differently when the state government arranges and executes a human being, the very definition of premeditated murder? Capital punishment has been reviewed and studied for many years, exposing several inequities and weaknesses, showing the need for the death penalty to be abolished.

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.

Georgia – BB; Jeffrey Raiman, “Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty” – BB; Ernest Van den Haag, “The Ultimate Theory of Punishment” – BB; David Gelernter, “What do Criminals Deserve?” – BB; Dahlia Lithwick, Review of “The Autobiography of an Execution,” The New York Times, Feb. 14, 2010 – BB