Cesare Beccaria's Argument Against The Death Penalty

Decent Essays
According to Cesare Beccaria in his essay known as Crime and Punishment, he states that “ the death of the citizen should have the same consequences with the death of the man.” Due to this belief, many accept the idea of the death penalty. On the other hand, many others are against the death penalty because the act costs taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money and other reasons that will be later elaborated in my case. Due to that, I stand against the affirmative side which states a just society ought not use the death penalty as form of punishment. For further clarification I offer the following definitions- Ought-used to indicate something that is probable
Death penalty- the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted
…show more content…
One of the philosopher’s I will mention in today’s debate is Beccaria, and he states that justice should be upheld in the court, which in turn could mean that justice is the main priority in most debates. He is both an economist and criminologist who played a major role in the 18th century's Age of Enlightenment. He is partly responsible for the academy of fists, a society dedicated to political, administrative and economic reform. One of his most famous works is "On Crimes and Punishments" where he discusses the criminal justice system of the time. Beccaria also states in his essay that “It is upon this then that the sovereign's right to punish crimes is founded.” This quote supports my stance by showing that we, as the people have the right to punish people for their actions as a sort of human…show more content…
In fact, the Constitution plainly sanctions capital punishment in several instances. The Eighth Amendment is the most famous, with its injunction against inflicting "cruel and unusual punishments." The Fifth Amendment also provides textual support for lethal punishment. No person, it reads, shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That means the government may in fact deprive you of your life, but only after you've been properly charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death (and then only after you have exhausted your legal appeals). Upon ratification in 1868, the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause applied that safeguard against the states. To be sure, judges are duty-bound to scrutinize the application of capital punishment in each and every case that comes before the bench. But the only way to end the death penalty in its entirety (short of constitutional amendment) is through the political process. The death penalty should be vigorously debated. Does it deter crime? Does it provide closure to victims and their families? Is it revenge masquerading as justice? Is it a bloody relic we're better off without? But we should not pretend the Constitution is silent or ambivalent about the basic existence of the practice. Like it or not, the death penalty is constitutional. In conclusion
Get Access