Is Capital Punishment Immoral? Essay

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.

Many contend that the death penalty is morally impermissible due to some irreversible miscarriages of justices . However, capital punishment can be defended in both consequentialist and deontological terms. Kantian ethics claims that, for exceptionally heinous crimes committed with malice aforethought, the penalty of death is not only morally justifiable but is morally obligatory. Consequentialists can substantiate the use of capital punishment through the claim that the death penalty is more effective than other more moderate punishments in averting the murder of innocents through inducing the fear of consequences in

Since the earliest times, man has struggled with the concept of justice. The controversy of capital punishment has weighed on the minds of humans since the beginning. When we are wronged it is our natural instinct to demand compensation. This thirst for revenge can be seen in the earliest civilizations and societies. Ancient Hammurabi code states “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (History of the World). For many people this little axiom seems fair. Others however, think otherwise and warn of a blind and toothless community. What is it about capital punishment that divides so many Americans? Is it the possibility of an innocent man being executed too much of a risk? Should our current

One of the points that Kant tries to make is to never treat “humanity”, whether it be yourself or another person, as a means the same time as an end (Wells-Quash, 2010). On the topic of capital punishment, it can be viewed that just simply killing someone out of revenge for a heinous act is against the notion of Kant’s system.

In these two short essays, one by Anthony G. Amsterdam and another by Ernest Van Den Haag both authors make two very important views. Although one supports capital punishment and one is against capital punishment, both authors have good reasons to support their case. Amsterdam believes that capital punishment is a brutal process that a murderer has to go through. Amsterdam believes that the murderer should be punished for their actions, but should not go through capital punishment. Although Ven Den Haag agrees that capital punishment is one of the harshest penalties, it should nevertheless be used. Ven Den Haag believes that a murderer should take responsibility for their actions,

Capital punishment is most commonly known as the death penalty or punishment by death for a crime. It is a highly controversial topic and many people and great thinkers alike have debated about it. Two well-known figures are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Although both stand in favor of capital punishment, their reasons for coming to this conclusion are completely different. I personally stand against capital punishment, but my own personal view on it incorporates a few mixed elements from both individuals as well as my own personal insight. Firstly, in order to understand why Kant and Mill support capital punishment, we must first understand their views on punishment in general.

Capital punishment has raised debate in America since 1608. Both the “pro-“ and “anti-“ sides of the issue have strong arguments. Some believe killing is simply wrong, and violates universal human rights, others seek the only justice they deem appropriate, equal justice. I will examine the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill, with regards to their stance on the death penalty.

The victim did not do anything to deserve death, the criminal did. To counter the argument that capital punishment is uncivilized, Van Den Haag points out that most civilizations have had the death penalty at some point in their history. He also addresses the argument that the death sentence is degrading by showing that philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, have said that execution affirms the criminal’s humanity by affirming their ability to make decisions and rationalize.

When viewing capital punishment in light of retributive justice, Kant's "Respect for Persons" ethics can be applied in order to uphold the retentionist argument. Capital punishment continues to be a growing controversial topic in society and is an important ethical dilemma to discuss. It can most prominently be supported by Kant's "Respect for Persons" ethics which when applied to the practice of capital punishment implies that it is morally acceptable in the sense that it gives people what they deserve. Additionally, despite consistent arguments by those who oppose capital punishment, the death penalty appears to be the most practical practice of punishment granted certain conditions.

There is a lot of controversy about whether the death penalty should be legal or not. It is widely used, with only 18 out of the 50 states having abolished it, but should it be permitted, regardless of the popularity of it? The answer is no. It should be abolished because it demeans life, is cruel, prison is a better punishment, and it is not effective.

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.

Should one person have the right to end another human's life? It is a question most people have the answer for when it comes to capital punishment. Capital punishment is known to some people one of the cruelest punishment to humanity. Some people believe giving a person the death penalty doe's not solve anything. While other's believe it is payback to the criminal for the crime they have committed. There have been 13,000 people executed since the colonial times, among 1900 and 1985 there were 139 innocent people sentence to death only 23 were executed. In 1967 lack of support and legal challenges cut the execution rate to zero bringing the practice to a complete end by 1972. Although the supreme court authorized its resumption in 1976

and Ruth Ellis, the last women to be a victim of the Death Penalty in

The death penalty is a tough debate and an overwhelming argument in this country. We as Americans put Timothy McVeigh to death by lethal injection just three months ago. Arguments can be made for and against the death penalty, but this is not the problem. Capital Punishment is supposed to be a deterrent to crime, but is the death penalty really a deterrent? Capital Punishment is not a deterrent for crime, and the effects of Capital Punishment are actually hurting the American citizens. Capital Punishment affects the American citizens by having those citizens pay millions of dollars for death row inmates, and these criminals affect those same citizens because the

Welcome to America, the land of the free, of the prosperous, of the opulent. America the Beautiful, one of the only places in the world where all citizens regardless of race, background, or social class are constitutionally guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—that is unless you're on death row. In modern day America we are still faced with the antiquated ritual of capital punishment, a practice that interferes directly with the law of the land. The same forms of punishment used during the middle ages are still in effect today, the same ideas that should have been abolished had the U.S. government revised it's penology. Capital punishment is cruel as well as unusual and inadequate for our advanced society. The United