Comparing Mill And Mills On The Death Penalty

The death penalty is a cruel, ineffective and a morally confusing method used to punish a criminal. For many years the death sentence has been a controversial topic. Many agree that it is wrong and unconstitutional, however, others disagree and say that it is well deserved and that one who kills should, themselves, be killed as well. I stand firm in my belief, opposing the death sentence, for many reasons and research and studies done also support my idea.

In John Stuart Mills speech on capital punishment, he expresses his favor of the preservation capital punishment for murder and thoroughly defends his position. Mill bases his belief on the proposal that he death penalty is the most effective deterrent on criminal behavior, he believes it is the most human way of treating criminals who commit murder, and it increases the sum total of happiness. Mill states that human action should adhere to the “greatest-happiness principle,” which strives to produce the greatest sum total of happiness sum among all parties involved.

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.

Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.

In modern days times the death penalty is more subtle and less barbaric, thanks to lethal injection ("10 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Death Penalty."). Is some cases a lot of people believe the death penalty is necessary. When a mass murderer receives the death penalty, few disagree with the punishment. Capital punishment is for the worst of the worst, and for the worst of the worst to receive the worst punishment there is, is only fair. The debate over capital punishment will continue for years to come, whether it’s abolished or not. It is a punishment that may or may not truly fit the crime, while being morally questionable all at that same

The death penalty’s main argument is morality. Is it wrong or is it right to sentence someone to death for a crime. The idea of capital punishment stems back from the world’s earliest known societies (Garland, 2011). In the United States today the death penalty is used as form of punishment in 32 states. America is a country of opinion, Americans have their own outlook on everything and the death penalty is no different. Many Americans feel capital punishment is wrong and unethical; while other Americans feel it is ethical and needed.

Burgess, Regehr & Roberts (2013), lamented “The Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, controlled the use of capital punishment by prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment” (p. 175). The justice system has valid alternatives to the death penalty, such as life imprisonment without parole, that constitute adequate punishment even for the most repugnant crimes. Moreover, it is dangerous to engage in ethical equivalencies and hierarchically rank human beings; the point should not be to judge whose life is more vulnerable, but rather to affirm that all human life must be valued. A system that ends a human existence cannot stand in a righteous and just society. The solution is for the justice system to provide remedy to victims, not vengeance. Moreover, this view fails to give due credence to the reality that the death penalty system has not been and cannot be proven to be a successful deterrent, is more expensive than relevant alternatives because of the appellate process, is subject to human error, and is often riddled with economic and racial bias in its application. The irrevocable nature of the death penalty renders it an unsustainable and indefensible remedy in an imperfect justice system. What should be done to the death penalty is not an intellectual exercise. The death penalty can divide and damage families, due to the fact that death is final and because individuals have deeply held feelings about the morality and utility of executions, unlike any other punishment the death penalty creates irreconcilable conflict amongst the surviving family members of murder

After researching and learning the beliefs and theories of each philosopher, I can conclude that I agree with Kant on the death penalty issue. I strongly agree with the belief that “we shall treat others the same way we want to be treated”.

One of the first issues that are always brought up concerning the death penalty is its morality. Those for the death penalty, they addressed the fact that the opposition would suggest that the death penalty is inherently immoral because no one or one government should take someone’s life. In the cases sentences to the

The death penalty is a topic that has been around for years that deals with ethics, a set of moral principles or values. This issue has been constantly filled with people’s emotions, attitudes, and their beliefs from all walks of life. There are people in favor of the death penalty while others will argue against it. No matter how the world changes there will never be a final argument or resolution to the understanding, acknowledgement, or ending to the rights or wrongs of the death penalty.

Those who oppose the death penalty claim that it is not an effective deterrent, while supporters claim that it is the most effective deterrent in existence. Further, does man have the right to determine another man’s fate as a means of punishment? How do we know the person to be executed is absolutely guilty without question? There have been numerous exonerations of wrongly accused individuals on death row as well as innocent individuals executed. On the other hand, one must consider the victim and the victim’s family. While nothing can justify taking a life, those who suffer as a result of a homicide seek justice. Over the course of this research, opposition and support will be explained and evaluated. While exploring both sides, one

Question: Examine the ethical issue on capital punishment and discuss the extent to which it should be allowed.

The arguments surrounding capital punishment have focused primarily on its ability to provide general deterrence. Instead of focusing on a purely utilitarian aspect of capital punishment, it may be useful to analyze the death penalty through a morality perspective. The idea of retribution often carries a negative connotation because of its equivocation with the concept of revenge. While they may externally seem similar, they are far from analogous when analyzing the underlying motivations driving the two ideological perspectives.

The concept of capital punishment in The United States has undergone multiple conversations and debates whether it is morally right or morally wrong. Currently, 19 States have declared capital punishment as illegal, while it remains legal in 31 states. Yet, much controversy remains around the death penalty. The notion of killing someone because of certain crimes may appear too cruel for many, but for others, this may appear perfectly fine. The death penalty is in fact morally wrong in my eyes because we should not play judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to the lives of others.

For many year, the death penalty has been widely debated throughout the United States. We as a country are divided on this topic; half believing it is unjust, unconstitutional, inhumane, and cruel. The other half believing it is morally just and constitutional. Those thinking it is cruel want capital punishment abolished. The others want to see it revised and maintained.