Chekhov The Bet

When released they go back out in society and commit the same crime or a crime worse than before. Sentencing them to life in prison places other prisoners and staff at risk. When placed in jail knowing they have nothing else to lose with a life sentence, society has now let a murderer free in jail to murder at will. However, if released into society you now put an entire population of individuals at risk. Wesley Lowe, author of “The Morality of Capital Punishment:” on the “ Pro Death Penalty Webpage,” states the following, “The recidivism rate for capital punishment is zero. No executed murderer has ever killed again. You can’t say that about those sentenced to prison even if you are an abolitionist”(27).

The death penalty has been a controversial topic for a long time, and rightfully deserves to be when a man’s life is in the government’s hand. Although life sentences are the popular alternative, the death penalty is the best solution to heinous crimes because it saves the government money, teaches citizens that they are responsible for their own actions and actually saves lives. Capital punishment has been around since the 18th century B.C., when the code of King Hammurabi of Babylon established death as the penalty for 25 different crimes. The death penalty cannot be seen as “cruel and unusual punishment” since it has been around for so long.

Though Anton Chekhov's "The Bet" was written in a different country at a different time, it portrays a timeless theme; greed is a crippling trait of mankind. This message can be seen through the author's use of characterization of both the lawyer and the banker. The banker was a static character; he was greedy from start to finish. The lawyer was a dynamic character and he saw the wrong in his ways and changed them in the end.

Some may think that the death penalty is a good punishment though. Their reasons being that is more humane to put someone to death than to throw them into prison to rot for the rest of their life. Inmates who receive the life without parole punishment will never see the light of day ever again. They will spend their whole life knowing that someone else was able to escape their hell by being given the death penalty. To add on to that while they live their life out, they are stuck thinking about the crimes they have committed for the rest of their existence, no matter how much they regret what they have

The world that we live in today have people who commit unforgivable crime by hurting others and making society feel unsafe. Individuals who perform serial crimes towards our society must face some kind of punishment, determine by the court justice and the people. Unfortunately, the capital punishment made by people and those with authority take justice on their own hands intensively. It is surprising how preventing others to commit the same crimes or worse have been taken so far. Everything is making that person feel unsafe and without hope of any kind. We must be considerate and realized that we make mistake, but we need to learn from it and have another chance to make things right. Prison it is a way to punish and give a second chance to a person even if it is for the rest of their life. We must never take a life for another life, because we will be becoming a criminal as well. The wrongful acts of punishment in this society is to create deterrence, torture, and self satisfaction; instead of just putting criminals in jail without deciding if they should stay alive.

The death penalty has been battered backwards and forwards by the questions of abolishment and replacement, with mixed results. There seems to a jagged line in the sand on where people stand, and due to the continuous use today (albeit at a slower clip than in the past), it is still very much a prevalent topic of punishment. Those who argue for it believe that taking it away will take away a great deterrent, that families find peace, and that those who commit egregious crimes deserve only death. Anything less “would fail to do justice because the penalty – presumably a long period in prison – would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime” (“Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments,” 2016). Those who don’t believe in this punishment as a modern-day, useful tool of deterrence and punishment for crime, continuously counter these arguments, as well as any others, daily at every turn. Though many states have made it illegal, others placing moratoriums or refusals to use it, the death penalty can still be found active today. But why can’t it be replaced with life without parole, and it if can why should it?

Compared to the death penalty, life in prison is perceived as an ethical decision, while the choice to inflict the death penalty is irreversible, the latter allows for better judgement in the long run. An article from, the Nation, contrasts the costs between both methods, "carrying out an execution costs at least twice as much-and perhaps five times as much- as sentencing a murderer to life without parole" (David Dow, Life Without Parole: A Different Death Penalty, the Nation). Clearly, if the economy is to be impacted to such an extent, then law enforcement must re-evaluate whether or not the death penalty is actually meaningful in the long run. If the government were to eliminate the funding used for resources towards the death row, and instead facilitate the money elsewhere, it would serve more meaningful purposes. Moreover, life in prison guarantees a, "Swift, severe punishment. It provides justice to survivors of murder victims and allows more resources to be invested in preventing violence." (Is Life in Prison without Parole a Better Option then Death Penalty, ProCon). The answer to seeking justice for one crime, should not be answered for by committing another. If this were a concept applied by people in everyday life, then murder rates would escalate and hold potential for anarchy. On a realistic thought, a majority of the problems related to the death penalty can be avoided through a more humane penance. It also leads to whether or not government institutions should have the warrant to issue capital

1. Being in prison for life is tough enough, life imprisonment breaks down one’s mental health which is more detrimental and serves more as a “payback” to the murderer.

The punishment reserved for the worst offenders can be either the death penalty or life in prison without parole. Today, there are thirty-two states that choose to execute criminals for their horrendous crimes and eighteen states that use life without parole to punish those who committed the worst crimes. Life without parole often called “Civil Death” is a punishment that specifies that offenders will spend the remainder of their life in Jail, while death penalty is a punishment allowing to put offenders on the death row for crimes they committed. At first sight death penalty and life without parole seem different but they have more in common than what meets the eyes. First, death penalty and life without parole are both the highest form of

The lack of answers to the question stems from the thought; what if americans don 't care if the convicted criminal suffers? Addressing this speculation was Oklahoma Republican state representative, Mike Christian, in reference to the recent media exposure of inhumane executions by lethal injection. He said, "I really don 't care if it 's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine, or being fed to the lions." (Parker, 2014, Web). Christian just simply wanted the convicted criminal who brought harm to other individuals and their families dead. Do people really care how inhumane the process is? Is that why the government has never addressed the issue, even with recent public exposure to its flaws? However, even with the vengeful thoughts, inhumane and inmate rights still apply, even for someone on death row. According to CivilRights.com, a website composed a constitution of inmate rights, says, “Inmates have the right to be free, under the Eighth Amendment, from inhumane conditions because those conditions constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment.” Even the most monstrous of people, do indeed carry their constitutional rights, even up until death (Andrews, 2015, Web). The Constitutional Rights of Inmates goes on to say, “Any punishment that can be considered inhumane treatment or that violates the basic concept of a person 's dignity may be found to be cruel and unusual.” It has been proven inmates carry these rights; due to the

Cruel and Unusual Punishment, according to merriam-webster.com, is a punishment that is very harsh and too severe for the crime. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the federal government from imposing or inflicting cruel and unusual punishment, stating that "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." This meaning, the punishment should not be too severe. There are nineteen states without the death penalty, while thirty-one that still have it including California, Florida, and Texas. There have been cases, in these states, in which the criminal sentenced death suffered once administered the most common protocol to date used on death row which was lethal injection. One man, Charles

First of all, if a person is getting sentenced to the death penalty committed a pretty bad crime, therefore we could switch the death penalty with a lot of time in prison. In prison, you have a lot of time to yourself, you can potentially learn lessons also. One life lesson you can learn in prison, is how to let go of control. Some people may argue that everyone is scared of death, and death is the worst punishment you could possibly face. But you don’t get time to learn your lesson, people can get better, it is possible. But if they get sentenced to death, they have no opportunity to redeem themselves and get better.

Though morality is dependent upon one’s personal inclination, most people can agree that it is not respectable to torture a human being before he or she is put to death. Animals are “put down” humanely so it would only make sense for people to be as well. There are issues such as homeless people, starving children, and young boys and girls who are victims of sex trafficking to tend to. Money that could be used for these areas of concern is being used to kill inmates in ways that cannot guarantee one hundred percent that there will be little to no pain each time the death penalty is utilized. As previously expressed, it is cheaper to sentence someone to life in prison and continue to keep them alive than it is to put someone on death row and kill them. Taxpayers are constantly looking for cuts within taxes and the perfect way to reward them with this would be to eliminate the death penalty. Since capital punishment does not seem to be solving the issue of gruesome murders taking place within the United States, there is no need to continue

Lifetime imprisonment and the death penalty are both punishments used for serious criminals who can be considered “a threat to society”. Life imprisonment can come with the option of possibility of parole throughout serving their sentencing or a life sentence without parole. The life sentence is a commonly used punishment between the two due to the fact in the United States of America only 31 of the 50 states still use the death penalty. The remaining states are left with a death penalty ban. Between the two punishments, the life sentence is the most practical and provides the most justice for the wronged compared to the death penalty that is very costly, inhumane but almost too easy and can and has put innocent lives at risk.

In high school I read a short story called The Bet by Anton Chekhov. The story was about a young lawyer who made a bet with a banker that imprisonment for fifteen years was better than the death penalty. Like Socrates in Plato’s Crito the lawyer was trying to challenge society’s beliefs. While in confinement the lawyer read many books, whose subjects ranged from languages to philosophy. After fifteen years of solitary confinement the lawyer rejects his prize money and defaults on the bet, hours before winning. I wonder if the man had read the Crito. We can reason that Socrates’ could have inspired the man to decide to pick the more brash choice to try and teach his accusers a lesson. The man may have decided to default on the bet when he was so close to winning because he wished to make the lesson the banker learned more memorable and infinite. In the Crito even though Socrates thinks himself to be innocent of the charges brought against him he still refuses to escape prison when presented with the opportunity. This helps him teach his final lesson about the principles he believes are worth dying for. His principles are that the opinion of the many is unimportant, his life is not worth living with a corrupt soul, life is not as important as living justly, the only consideration to take into account is justice, and acting unjustly is always bad and shameful. Even though Socrates and the polis or laws arrive at the same conclusion that Socrates should not escape prison, the