Death Penalty: The Consistent Ethic Of Life

Senator for Utah Orrin Hatch once said, “Capital punishment is our society’s recognition of the sanctity of human life,” (Brainy Quote). While the arguments for both sides of the debate over the morality of the death penalty are vast, the bottom line is that the death penalty does not disregard human life, but rather it reveres it, as Hatch said. Morality is defined as, “The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct,” (The Free Dictionary). One who seeks to protect a person who has committed a heinous crime such as murder is arguably not in accords with what is right and wrong. Therefore, although killing is generally accepted as being wrong, the death penalty is sometimes the only solution to bring justice to a

The death penalty has been a huge part of many political debates for the past few decades. There are two sides, those for and those against its continued use and both have logical arguments. My research question is if it is ethical and or beneficial for the U.S. government to continue using the death penalty? To gain the attention of my audience, I am going to share two stories that my sources have on those with experience in the debate. The Forbes article, “Considering The Death Penalty: Your Tax Dollars At Work,” is an anti-death penalty piece explaining how an innocent man was on death row and his opinion on whether or not it should be used. He said in the piece that living out a life sentence without parole is worse than being executed.

On one end of the argument is the belief that all human lives are of equal merit, because they are humans it gives them equal merit. Therefore no human should ever take the life of another, even if that individual has taken other lives. This argument is mostly favored by people of religious faith, but there are some sensible individuals who also adhere to this as an ethical position. At the other end of the spectrum is an argument in favor of the death penalty because of its ability to get rid of a problematic human so that they will be able to do no more harm. This is a very utilitarianism-like perspective of the death penalty. To examine this perplexing ethical dilemma one must first figure out their stance on what death is, like Socrates would.

Ever since the dawn of man’s search for justice, the death penalty, has been a consequence for particularly heinous crimes. Over the years society has debated whether the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. People who oppose of the death penalty view supporters as gun-slinging "rednecks" who live in the backwoods of America. Likewise, supporters view those who oppose the death penalty as uptight "suits" who live in mansions and believes that every person, no matter their crime, deserves to live. Those who oppose the death penalty argue that life in prison is a preferable solution to the death penalty. The supporters of the death penalty argue that Hammurabi’s code, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, is an

Capital punishment is a sentence that is given to someone that has committed a capital crime. This is a subject of great debate; some people agree and some do not. There are times when a crime is so heinous that the majority would seek capital punishment. Susan Gissendaner received this sentence for plotting to kill her husband, although her boyfriend actually killed her husband. Since being in prison, Susan has undergone a conversion and transformation. She is now a model prisoner. Due to Susan’s transformation, they are trying to have her sentence changed. Should Susan’s sentence be commuted to life in prison is the question being asked? This paper will answer the question by providing a moral judgment viewed by two non-consequentialist theories. The strengths and weaknesses of these positions will be assessed. Whether I agree or disagree will be answered and explained.

Various religions also have varied responses to capital punishment. Even a particular denomination or religious group may not have a unified stand regarding capital punishment. Religious sentiments do play a significant part in the views of people regarding capital punishment. The Bible is replete with various passages that may seem to support or condemn capital punishment. The Old Testament, particularly, is based upon a morality of “teeth against teeth” and “life for life.” The books of laws of the Old Testament actually prescribe stoning to death the persons who commit serious crimes against God and against the community. A number of biblical scholars have considered the part of the Ten Commandments that say “You shall not kill” as a prohibition against individual cases of murder (The Ryrie Study Bible, Exodus 20:13). In the first place, the Christian faith believes that humans are created in the image of God. As such, a serious crime against another person is also a crime against God. In the Old Testament, premeditated murder was sufficient reason for the death penalty (Numbers 35:31, 33). Moreover, in Genesis 9:6, it can be read that “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”. St. Thomas Aquinas also published his thoughts regarding capital

In view of these safeguards, proponents of capital punishment believe that state executions are justified sentences for those convicted of willful first-degree murder. They do not think sentencing murderers to prison is a harsh enough sentence, especially if there is the possibility of parole for the perpetrator. A final argument posed by proponents of the death penalty is that execution is an effective deterrence. They are convinced that potential murderers will likely think twice before they commit murder. Despite the rhetoric of politicians for the increased use of the death penalty, a number of prominent individuals and organizations have emerged to express their opposition to capital punishment. Along with families of death row prisoners, the International Court of The Hague, the United Nations, Amnesty International, the Texas Conference of Churches, Pope John Paul II, Nobel Peace recipient, Bishop Tutu, numerous judges and former prosecutors, former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, actors, and writers are waging a determined struggle against the death penalty. They invariably argue that capital punishment is wrong and inhumane. Religious folk generally evoke the nature of an “ideal spiritual community” (Cauthen, 1). Within this perspective, a moral and ethical community does not insist on a life for a life. While a community must act to protect law- abiding citizens, an ethical response would be to

Religion plays a big role in some people 's lives and can influence their opinion on capital punishment. In the U.S. the two largest religions are Christianity and Judaism, within both of those religions some people are for capital punishment and some are against capital punishment. Several christian groups in the late 1970s formalized their religious and moral reasons against the imposition of the death penalty. “Among them was, capital punishment: violated the command by Jesus to employ the ethic of love, perpetuated the evil of retaliation, ignored the guilt that the society may have had in the causation of the crime, and prevented the possibility of any kind of rehabilitation of the criminal” (Flamehorse).

Although traditionally also a supporter of capital punishment, the Roman Catholic Church now oppose the death penalty. In addition, most Protestant denominations, including Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and the United Church of Christ, oppose the death penalty. During the 1960s, religious activists worked to abolish the death penalty, and continue to do so today.

Life is sacred. This is an ideal that the majority of people can agree upon to a certain extent. For this reason taking the life of another has always been considered the most deplorable of crimes, one worthy of the harshest available punishment. Thus arises one of the great moral dilemmas of our time. Should taking the life of one who has taken the life of others be considered an available punishment? Is a murderer's life any less sacred than the victim's is? Can capital punishment, the death penalty, execution, legal murder, or whatever a society wishes to call it, be morally justifiable? The underlying question in this issue is if any kind of killing, regardless of reason, can be accepted. In this

“January 1999 - Pope John Paul II visits St. Louis, Missouri, and calls for an end to the death penalty” (Death Penalty Information Center). The Death Penalty is the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. In many states this punishment is legal, the rest of the 18 states eliminated this punishment and it's currently illegal. The race of the perpetrator, lifestyle, and certain people can determine ,or change, the way the criminal is sentenced. I think we should keep this punishment in the states, however some say it gives the government too much power, giving them ability to take lives. Why should the heartless criminal get to live when they, themselves, killed someone? This punishment gives closure

Capital Punishment was adopted by America when the state of Virginia carried out the colonies’ first execution in 1608 (“History of the Death Penalty”). Since then, usage of the death penalty has been instituted by 36 states, making execution the ultimate form of punishment. Although in theory the death penalty seems like a viable method of punishment, in practice, it has serious flaws that damage the integrity of the state. Capital Punishment has been falsely idolized as a deterrent, applied unfairly for generations, used as a vehicle for revenge, and made people blind to the fact that life in prison without parole is an equally acceptable form of punishment. The death penalty is an

Pope Francis specifically decided that the Catholic Church has the duty to involve themselves in the hot topic of death penalty and take a stance against it. This idea of “duty,” is clearly stated in the quote by Pope Francis saying that the issue “touch(es) directly on the dignity of human person,” and therefore the Catholic Church must become involved. Of course, the death penalty is just one issue, of many others, that the Church and specifically Pope Francis have spoken out about. Particularly the idea of the Catholic Church feeling a sense of duty to position itself in issues that concern human dignity is an echo reached to the followers of that Church, Catholics in the country and abroad—this idea could prove to be a little

Two major claims: death penalty serves as a deterrent and death penalty is morally justified because murderers can’t live and you have a right to kill them.

Capital punishment: the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for crime. In the United States, there is a distinct line between matters of Church and State; capital punishment falls under the territory of the State. But, in 1974, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the USCCB, made the decision to publically announce the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to capital punishment after a former president of the USCCB called the issue of capital punishment not only a “profound legal and political question” but also an “important moral and religious issue.” But, even this sagacious group of Church officials had a difficult time pin-pointing the Church’s exact reasoning for their defensive against capital punishment. Throughout the article, the bishops try to make sense of many twisting questions, including: in the eyes of the Church, what circumstances, if any, make capital punishment acceptable? Although the 1980 article was released by the USCCB in attempts to help the people of the Church understand this contradictory issue, it fell short due to the fact that even the accredited statements run in circles.