Capital Punishment: Should it be Legal? Essay

Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.

Since the earliest times, man has struggled with the concept of justice. The controversy of capital punishment has weighed on the minds of humans since the beginning. When we are wronged it is our natural instinct to demand compensation. This thirst for revenge can be seen in the earliest civilizations and societies. Ancient Hammurabi code states “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (History of the World). For many people this little axiom seems fair. Others however, think otherwise and warn of a blind and toothless community. What is it about capital punishment that divides so many Americans? Is it the possibility of an innocent man being executed too much of a risk? Should our current

These are overworked and underpaid lawyers – meaning that defendant receives a lower-quality lawyer. These lower-quality lawyers increase the chance of racial minorities’ defendants to be sentenced and convicted at a higher rate. According to the Bureaus of Justice Statistics, 73% of Hispanics and 77% of blacks use a public lawyer. This means that 73% of Hispanics and 77% of blacks have the possibility of facing an underpaid and overworked public attorney thus increasing their chance of going to prison. The unfortunate economic disadvantages cause these people to go to jail more often. Any person may face economic difficulties but as a group Hispanics and blacks face them more and sadly because of this fact as a group they go to jail more

The death penalty is also widely opposed by people across America because it is argued to be immoral, a form of torture, economically biased, susceptible to error and does not act as a deterrent. In contrast to the opponent’s view, supporters believe that religiously the death penalty is wrong because the Bible says “Thou shalt not kill”. (sixth commandment) It is also argued that if killing is wrong, then the government should not use it as a form of punishment (Death Row on Trial 2001: video) “how can we kill people who kill people to show its wrong” (Death Row on Trial 2001: video) Also when a person is sentenced to death, they are told how they will be killed and when, until finally they are taken to be executed, which could be years after receiving the original sentence. (Washington Post 2008: e.data) This period in which the convicted person must wait is considered to be a form of torture, (Washington Post 2008: e.data; Death Row on Trial 2001: video) especially when in some cases the person will often see or even hear being tested the chair in which they will be executed. (Death Row on Trial 2001: video) Another major

The death penalty has long been the most prevalent and the most severe punishment in the world. Humanity has been using death as a sentence seen the time humans acquired the ability to slay each other. In many primitive societies, the act of killing a person as retribution for violating a crime was adopted by the governing powers of that those societies. Since the establishment of the Ancient Laws of China, one of the oldest continuously operating legal system on the Earth, the death penalty has been recognized as an adequate punishment for certain offenses. Also, in the 18th Century B.C., the Babylonian code of law or the Code of King Hammurabi recognized legalized execution as punishment for twenty-five different crimes. The death penalty as its roots in America before the colonization of the New World by the Europeans. Since the time of the Natives American tribes, the death penalty has been used to punish thief’s, murderers, and so on. Then when the Europeans colonies defined themselves as the United States of American in 1776, a new guideline of rights was ratified. These rights make up the Constitution of America and lay down an expectation for the treatment of America’s citizens. However, is the death penalty appropriate or even constitutional in this age?

There is a lot of controversy about whether the death penalty should be legal or not. It is widely used, with only 18 out of the 50 states having abolished it, but should it be permitted, regardless of the popularity of it? The answer is no. It should be abolished because it demeans life, is cruel, prison is a better punishment, and it is not effective.

Ages ago in Greek and Roman culture there was many ways of execution for the inmate such as: putting the person in a bag with venomous snakes and let them kill them, or put them in a cooper bull that they would put the person in the bull close it. Then they would build a fire under the bull and listen to the person scream. The screaming would turn to smoke when it went through the nostrils making it look as if it was mad (history channel).

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.

Being one of the seventy- four countries that carry out the capital punishment, the United States is currently fourth in executions per year. Beyond this,

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

    Confronting head-on two of the most prominent objections to the death penalty is the object of this paper: Is the death penalty a miscarriage of justice? And Does it Deter Crime?

Capital punishment, also known as death penalty is a legal procedure in which a state executes a person for crimes he/she has committed. This punishment has been implemented by many states and used for barbaric crimes, especially murder. It is also used on crimes against the state such as treason, crimes against humanity and violent crimes. There are mixed reactions on capital punishment depending on one’s faith. In my view, I am not in favor of capital punishment as I strongly believe that death penalty is unacceptable and an inhumane practice for it denies one’s right to live. Death penalty does not deter crime, it is an act of punishment, it costs more than life imprisonment, and worst of all, risks executions of innocent people. In countries where the death penalty remains, those victims die at the hands of that state but more importantly they are left to die by their own home states (Conall 1).

If it were up to me, every murderer in this country would be put behind bars on death row and have their life taken from them just as they took the life of another. The guidelines of " an eye for an eye" go back thousands of years. Many countries still hold true to these guidelines. Although America doesn't follow the same as these countries, I believe when it comes to murder, they should.

Opponents of the death penalty have also proposed that by showing that we as a society find it reasonable to kill sometimes with capital punishment, that it shows criminals that it is acceptable to kill under certain circumstances. While the logic behind this argument may seem sound it is flawed. This is mainly because of the fact that though capital punishment is used, it is placed under very strict guidelines. It is clearly visible to notice the difference in what the law defines as acceptable and not acceptable reasons to kill somebody. It is a logical fallacy to agree with this argument, just because capital punishment kills people and capital punishment is accepted does not mean that a person killing people will be accepted.

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