Ernest Van Den Haag's In Defense Of Capital Punishment

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.

Capital punishment is one of the most controversial topics in today’s world. Many people believe that it is morally wrong to have capital punishment as a sentence to a crime. People also do believe that it is morally permissible for a severe crime. Capital punishment is also known as the death penalty. It can be given as a sentence when somebody is convicted of an extremely violent crime. The biggest issue that can be seen with this is that somebody could be innocent and sentenced with the death penalty because of the nature of the crime that they have been accused of even if they didn’t commit it. I believe that there is a moral line between using the death penalty and using other forms of punishment.

Capital Punishment is a sensitive topic that seems to constantly generate controversy amongst many individuals. To give a little background, capital punishment involves executing a person deemed guilty of a severe crime. Various countries, including America, accept the use of this method. However, other countries such as Canada are strictly against the act due to many reasons. Although some argue that they are the best form of punishment, life imprisonment is the better alternative. It is more humane, improves the financial and social state of the country, and finally is safer.

Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Why do some view the taking of a life morally correct? These questions are discussed and debated upon in every state and national legislature throughout the country. Advantages and disadvantages for the death penalty exist, and many members of the United States, and individual State governments, have differing opinions. Yet it seems that the stronger arguments, and evidence such as cost effectiveness, should lead the common citizen to the opposition of Capital Punishment.

In David M. Oshinsky’s book, Capital Punishment on Trial: Furman v. Georgia and the Death Penalty in Modern America, he discussed the case of Furman v. Georgia. He explores the controversy that capital punishment holds in the United States of America. The death penalty has been in practice for many centuries. For example, “In Massachusetts, where religion had played a key role in settlement, crimes like blasphemy, witchcraft, sodomy, adultery, and incest became capital offenses, through juries sometimes hesitated to convict” (Oshinsky, 2010). For the punishment of death these offenses do not fit the crime. However, capital punishment at this time was rarely criticized. The death penalty demanded many executions including public ones. Many of these were hangings and were public events. After the American Revolution the death penalty began to be questioned. For example, Benjamin Rush stated, “Capital punishments are the offspring of monarchial governments. Kings believe that they possess their crowns by a divine right. They assume the divine power of taking away human life” (Oshinsky, 2010). By the 1840’s there were organized groups opposing the death penalty such as the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment. Within the coming years, the support for capital punishment fluctuated. Throughout the book, Oshinsky explores the many cases leading up to the Furman v. Georgia decision.

Capital Punishment is a moral controversy in today’s society. It is the judicial execution of criminals judged guilty of capital offenses by the state, or in other words, the death penalty. The first established death penalty laws can date back to the Eighteenth Century B.C. and the ethical debates towards this issue have existed just as long. There is a constant pro-con debate about this issue, and philosophers like Aristotle and Mill have their own take on this controversy as well. Aristotle is against capital punishment, while Mill believes it is morally permissible.

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

Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty, has been effective tool in our country’s justice system since its inception. When an inmate is given this, the harshest sentence available, it is always with just cause. Capital Punishment is an important tool in our criminal justice system today and there are several reasons it should remain in effect.

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.

Affirmation: Capital Punishment, by definition, is the legal and authorized killing of an individual as a punishment for a crime. Dating back as far as the Eighteenth Century B.C., capital punishment has been used internationally for the most dangerous and menacing criminals. However, is the traditional way always the moral way?

In society there many things that are debated among the people based on their beliefs, morals, and values. For this paper chose the death penalty because it is one of the highly debated topics in not only today’s society but also in the past. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, it used as a procedure of retaliation against those who commit violent crimes such as murder and other capital crimes. There are many forms of this punishment, for instance, the electric chair, lethal injections, and the firing squad. There are many feelings and arguments in relation to capital punishment. Some people believe that the death penalty is moral because they deserve it and it provides protection to the society. However, in this paper I will argue that capital punishment is totally immoral because it is not fair, is it unnecessary, and unethical.

Capital Punishment or death penalty by its nature is immoral and shameful. Capital Punishment is not an appropriate way to punish any criminal because no one should have right to take another human's life, be it good or for the bad. Therefore, the state or the government should not posses that right. Therefore it should be abolished. it is unfair , unjust and immoral punishment; risk of being killed an innocent is not ruled out. Capital Punishment is more

Despite all the pros and cons of capital punishment, society must think about what is truly correct and most practical for our world. Capital punishment is not functional in today’s legal system. There are countless amounts of evidence that proves these legal killings to be ineffective. We, as Americans, must correct this irrational practice before it does anymore permanent damage.

Since the mid 1900’s, capital punishment has brought many individuals into many diverse view points throughout the years. Capital punishment is a way of punishing a convict by killing him or her because of the crime he or she committed. Capital punishment will always have its pros and cons. There are opponents who absolutely disagree with capital punishment. And then there are advocates who support the idea. In the advocates view point, capital punishment is a way to minimize the threat in the world today. In the opponent’s point of view, opponents disagree with capital punishment, because of the high expenses it brings to the states. Also, opponents argue that capital punishment

A much debated topic in today’s society and a rather controversial issue is capital punishment, or the execution of a convicted criminal as a punishment for crimes known as capital offences. These may include murder, treason, drug trafficking and human trafficking depending on the country that is being referred to. The two opposing arguments about this issue are whether or not it should be allowed. Both sides offer a credible and justified resolution to this debate. However, as an unbiased individual, my say is that this form of punishment should be practiced.