Is Capital Punishment Always The Ethical Way?

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.

“Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect,” stated John F. Kennedy at Berlin on June 26th, 1963. Kennedy is most certainly correct in this subject because no government is ever “perfect.” There is always room for improvement in government and sometimes there are instances in which a law needs to be changed or repealed. Almost everyday, it seems, that there are outrageous crimes being committed and the criminals are being jailed rightfully so. Sometimes, a judge would decide that that criminal should receive the death penalty or capital punishment. Capital punishment has evolved over centuries from the ancient method of “an eye for an eye”, to beheadings, lynchings, electric chairs, etc. While most of

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.

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.

Capital punishment has been a hot topic for quite some time now. In earlier times it was merely a way to punish as well as an attempt to deter members of society from committing heinous crimes. In the last century we have actively monitored the effects of capital punishment, and this has revealed the truth. It is for these reasons capital punishment is not morally acceptable.

In the public eye today, the expression "Capital punishment" mixes up a great deal of discussion and feelings. At whatever point the word comes up, in-your-face extremist from both sides hollers out contentions to bolster their position. One side says "eye for an eye", the other side says there 's a capability of executing a pure man; one says equity, reprisal, and discipline; the other side says execution is homicide. Wrongdoing is a clear a portion of society, and everybody knows that something must be done about it. A great many people know the danger of

For centuries capital punishment has been used to “punish” criminals for a severe enough crime that they committed. It dates back to hundreds of years ago and has been enacted in many different countries, some that still have it today. Death penalty/capital punishment is the punishment of death an offender receives after having a court hearing and being convicted of a crime (ProCon.org, 2008). Once someone receives a death penalty sentence, they go on death row awaiting their execution. For a very long time, the controversy regarding whether or not the death penalty is ethical or just has been a topic of debate. I believe that the

The death penalty is a punishment given to people who commit heinous crimes. Since 1976, there have been over 1,390 executions. But does that make the death penalty, necessarily, a correct and justifiable form of punishment? “The death penalty is our harshest punishment,” states Ernest van den Haag, author of “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense.” Van den Haag, in his article, argues how the death penalty is effective and should be used. However, Jack Greenberg, James P. Gray, and Jeffery Reiman, all concur that the death penalty should not be used as a punishment for criminals. Jack Greenberg, author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment,” argues how the death penalty is an

Capital punishment is never morally justified, and feminist, progressive and socialist ethics would always consider the social and family environment that produced the criminal in the first place, including poverty, racism, segregation or other types of oppression. It would also examine ways that society could be reformed on restricted in ways that would reduce oppression, such as ending the ghettoization of minorities or the extreme inequality between rich and poor in the United States. Indeed, inequality is more extreme in the U.S, than any other Western nation, the prison population is larger and the social safety net much weaker. These conditions have worsened during the present recession, particularly for blacks and Hispanics. Among Western nations, only the U.S. still practices capital punishment even though there was a moratorium in 1967-77 because of Supreme Court rulings. Feminist ethics would also emphasize caring, community, empathy and interpersonal relationships instead of morality based on following rules and regulations (Volbrect 17). Their response to the death penalty as well as war and other forms of public or state-sanctioned violence would therefore be pacifist, and demand social, economic and cultural change rather than punishment of perpetrators.

Judge Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell of California have recently done a study on capital punishment and the cost that it has had on the state of California. Their findings may shock some, California has spent $4 billion in the past thirty years to up keep the death penalty, and the average capital trial cost $1 million more than non-capital trials (Alarcon & Mitchell, 2011). Capital punishment is a legal process where the punishment for a crime is death. This is a concept that has been around for a long time. One of the earliest written documents that support capital punishment is Hammurabi’s Code with the theory of “an eye for an eye” (Mark, 2011). The topic of capital punishment has become a very controversial one in the past couple decades. Many people are against it, saying that it is a “cruel and unusual punishment” and those for it fight say what a great deterrence it can be. While capital punishment may have had a purpose in the past, in our modern society I believe it should be an obsolete practice.

Many strong cases can be made in principle for and against capital punishment. The argument that is in favor is based on justice, and the nature of a moral community, which requires that each person has to respect the life and liberty of others. Those who commit vicious crimes immediately

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.

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.

Capital punishment, better known as the death penalty, is the act of killing or executing a person who was found guilty of a serious crime, by the government. Capital punishment became widespread during the Middle Ages and was applied throughout Western Europe for more than two thousand years. Although, the call to abolish it started in the 18th century, some of the first countries being Venezuela in 1863, San Marino in 1865, and Costa Rica in 1877. Great Britain abolished the death penalty in 1965 and was permanently outlawed in 1969. By 2004, eighty-one countries had abolished capital punishment, but some countries in the Caribbean, Africa and Asia still use it for ordinary crimes. At present day, China and the United States apply the