Capital Punishment : Should Not Be

Capital punishment has been a controversial issue that still exists in America today. Capital punishment is a law passed by the government to punish any individual that has been convicted of committed a heinous crime. The death penalty has been a method used throughout history as punishment for criminals. The punishment also known as the death penalty is a scheduled execution, which would be done with lethal injection. The reason why this punishment is chosen is because when crimes are committed that shock the conscience, the immediate emotional reaction is to retaliate with severe punishment (Schnurbush 2016). The death penalty is debated when it is brought up, opinions vary from one group of people to another, one side says the execution is murder, and the other saying that it is justice being done. Each side presents valid arguments to why people should be for it or against it; people’s opinions are formed by personal beliefs.

America is within the top four countries for the number of executions due to the death penalty since 1999. Citing the, “Amnesty International in For What Tomorrow (2004), more than 1,800 people were executed in 31 countries, the vast majority of these in China (1076), Iran (165), Saudi Arabia (103), and then the United States (98)” (NAAS, 43). The death penalty is currently an intense debate involving the idea of whether or not we as people should be able to sentence another person to death. According to the ethical and moral reasoning of the philosophers Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer, and Hugo Bedau, the death penalty should not be a legal punishment.

The death penalty is a punishment given to people who commit heinous crimes. Since 1976, there have been over 1,390 executions. But does that make the death penalty, necessarily, a correct and justifiable form of punishment? “The death penalty is our harshest punishment,” states Ernest van den Haag, author of “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense.” Van den Haag, in his article, argues how the death penalty is effective and should be used. However, Jack Greenberg, James P. Gray, and Jeffery Reiman, all concur that the death penalty should not be used as a punishment for criminals. Jack Greenberg, author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment,” argues how the death penalty is an

Capital Punishment is not a fair choice to do and it violates the human right to life. Everyone is born with the human right to life, even those who commit any type of crime; sentencing a person to death and executing them violates that right ( ). Just because a murderer killed someone, it does not mean their life should be taken away for punishment. It is generally accepted that people should not be punished for their actions unless they are guilty ( ). Whether the person is guilty is guilty or not they should not be given a deadly punishment. He inmates should just be locked up in prison and die from natural causes. When the prisoner becomes executed it is painful and cruel.

America should not abolish capital punishment because modern crime scene science and DNA testing can prove whether the perpetrator is guilty, or not. This certainty means that jury members will be less indecisive, overpopulation in the prison system will be lessened, and prisoners already serving a life sentence will be deterred from killing others.

The other day the Capital Hill Gang hosted a debate discussing the reasons why Capital Punishment should or should not remain as a punishment for prisoners. The following will present the main ideas expressed for and against Capital Punishment although slightly summarized. Lastly I will be closing with a few questions presented by the audience followed by their final statements and my personal remarks.

The controversy that surrounds the use of capital punishment argues issues that surround the death penalty, but not the death penalty itself. I believe that those who sit on death row are reserved for criminals who commit the worst acts and deserve to have their life taken. These criminals should not be given a second chance, because the life that was taken did not get a second chance. Those who are given the death penalty show the result that they are a danger to society, and they shouldn’t have the possibility of hurting any more people. One could argue that justice would be served while the criminal stays behind bars, two wrongs don’t make a right, and by committing the same offense that the criminal had done while saying it’s okay to do the same only because the state says it’s acceptable. I believe that keeping the death penalty is a morally justified action and is supported by Utilitarianism and the greatest happiness principle. The death penalty is something that should only be used for brutal and premeditated crimes, because of its effectiveness to deter crime, receive retribution, and give closure for victim’s families.

The issue we as a society face with this argument is mainly the morals and financial factors. For example if someone is sentenced to life in prison for murdering another human being, that may not be enough of a moral closure for the victims family. It’s hard to argue either way without being in those shoes, but the death penalty reassures this victims family that this murderer has no chance of getting out of prison. Whether it be parole, or an escape, a person still have the opportunity of getting out of prison, and statistically most convicts will be arrested again for the same or similar reasons as their first conviction, if they are

Today, one hears often of the rights of individuals as Americans. Whether it be their Miranda Rights or the right to bear arms granted in the Second Amendment, people are very concerned with what rights they are guaranteed. One right that is the topic of much debate is the right to life. One question seems to consistently prevail in this talk: to what extent are people guaranteed this right to live? Some would argue that this right is for everyone, regardless of any other factors, while others would argue that there are limitations to this right. The controversial capital punishment, or death penalty, and its validity stem from these thoughts. When one considers the way that capital punishment deters crime, grants justice, and provides

Just like everything that deals with people’s morals and ethical views there are people who agree and disagree with what is and is not ethical. The death penalty is one of these things that people cannot agree whether it is ethical to do or not. My article focuses on how big names in politics feel about capital punishment and whether they stand for it or not. Capital punishment is when someone commits a horrible crime they can be put on death row, and then they will be killed as punishment for the crime that they have committed. Before reading this article I was not very educated on the current issues and aspects of capital punishment.

Capital punishment is the cause of many debates throughout the country. Some people believe that Capital Punishment should be allowed as it gives the victims families the closure they desperately require. Others, like myself, believe that those who do unspeakable crimes should have to live with that guilt in a 6-foot by 8-foot cement room. Also, the problem with Capital Punishment, is sentencing the wrong person to death. Mary Lynn Smith, a writer for the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, tells us about Damon Thibodeaux, an almost-victim of Capital Punishment. Thibodeaux spent 16 years on Death Row for a murder he did not commit.

Every year as a result of the United States judicial system, a multitude of American citizens are put to death for murder, rape, and other such heinous crimes. This modus of punishment, otherwise referred to as capital punishment, is one used by the United States, her military, and most of her states. Most of the developed countries in this world have voided this coarse method of punishment, but the United States situation poses many complex issues, which cause this seemingly easily solvable problem to be one of the very issues, which divides this nation. The issue of capital punishment in the U.S. may be discussed through the process by which it is administered, its legality, and the stance taken by the Catholic Church.

There are many legal issues that come along with the death penalty. Ratified on December 15, 1791, The United States Bill of Rights states in its eight amendment, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” (8th Amendment to the Constitution). The Supreme Court stated during the 1958 case of Trop v. Dulles, that the 8th amendment "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” (Goldberg, 1778). Abiding by this definition, the death penalty is nowhere near decent; therefore it should not be used. This law clearly states that cruel or unusual punishment shall not be used on anybody, so how can death not be looked at as cruel or unusual? What about the agony of waiting on death row just to be put to death? As the Death Penalty Information Center website notes, “Death row inmates in the U.S. typically spend over a decade awaiting execution. Some prisoners have been on death row for well over 20 years” (Death Penalty Information Center). Prisoners who are on death row are generally isolated from other prisoners. They do not get to participate in prison activities or employment programs. They also are restricted on visitation and exercise time, and could spend up to 23 hours a day sitting in their isolated cell. Some people may be able to argue that performing the execution is quick and easy, but the process of getting to that point is not. For some

Imagine a family member of yours was unjustly framed with something he didn’t commit and he is sentenced to death penalty, how would you feel? Death sentence has been thrown back and forth with the argument that it is or it is not an acceptable way of punishing. Offenders are doing what they know best, breaking the law, but the government instead of fixing the problem by doing something better, the make it worse by taking another life from society, which can be considered a “crime”. The death penalty is currently being used by thirty-four out of the fifty in the United States. Death penalty often establishes the question, “Does the government have the right to take away someone’s life?” When death penalty claim another life, the people that get affected are the families of the ones being charged. Death penalty does not bring justice in this world, instead it takes the life of another human being, innocent or not. Death penalty should not exist because it is unconstitutional and affects the families of the person being charged with a certain case. Death sentence didn’t just come out of the blue, it had to come from somewhere and what inspired its creation

Specific purpose: my main aim is to convince the audience that capital punishment should be upheld. In other, the advantages of capital punishment outweigh its disadvantages.