Is The Death Penalty Is Morally Justified?

Today, the death penalty is constantly debated about on whether it should be used or not. The death penalty is usually issued to those commit “terrorism, treason, hijacking resulting in the death of a hostage, or the killing of a police[officer] or prison guard acting in the line of duty” (Source D). As source B indicates, opinions on the death penalty are mixed as the percentages of those in favour and of those opposed fluctuate. The death penalty is unjust as a form of punishment for committing a major felony. The death penalty is permanent and is morally wrong.

As far back as one can look into human civilization, justice for a murder victim has always been by taking the life of the killer. In today’s society capital punishment is needed to defend it from further harm, bring justice and/or vengeance to the victims of the loved ones, and encourage psychological deterrence. As of today, there are thirty-two states which offer the only just punishment for a crime without parallel and eighteen states having abolished the death penalty.

For thousands of years, punishment for crime has been met with several different styles of execution. In 1976, the United States government reinstalled the death penalty four short years after having banned it claiming that it "violated the Constitution 's ban on cruel and unusual punishment" (MacKinnon, "Ethics" 289). Since 1976, the morality of execution as just punishment has been a highly discussed topic. The death penalty is not morally permissible because dissolving one 's basic human right to life is wrong.

This is a big argument that bBy putting someone to death, you’re interfering with these human rights. Although the argument could be made that having someone imprisoned for the rest of their life is more torturous to the person than being put to death, by taking someone’s life, you’re interfering with their right to live. good

Whether innocent or guilty, no one has the right to end someone’s life. As a civilized society, the act of killing someone as

(Death Row on Trial 2001: video) Religiously, the death penalty can also be morally justified because the Bible states “an eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:23-27) which can be interpreted as a life for a life.

People that support the death penalty argued that death penalty is righteously justified when enforced in murder especially with disturbing elements such as for multiple murder, child murder, serial killing, torture murder, mass murder, terrorism, massacre or genocide. It is said that the death penalty for murder is and should be "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

Many criminals take the lives of or hurt many people around them. They are later released after doing time in prisons to go on the streets again where they will do the same things over again. "[W]e reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers. To sentence killers like those described above to less than death would fail to do justice because the penalty – presumably a long period in prison – would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime. Prosecutors, jurors, and the loved ones of murder victims understand this essential point…” Death penalty does the justice right for seriously violent criminals instead of having them do time in prisons to be released.

The death penalty will always be a topic some people refuse to talk about. When in fact, it is a very serious topic and people should know how and why the death penalty is not justified. I believe the death penalty is not justified in the least bit because there are people sitting up in prison just living life because the state does not want to pay for an execution, or they find it to be morally corrupt. Personally if you committed a crime that resulted in someone dying then you deserves to die as well. The idea of killing another human does not sit well with people and that is mainly the

Hannah Palmer Mrs.Ford English 5-6 2 February 2015 The Lifestyle and Mindset of a Serial Killer “I didn’t want to hurt them, I only wanted to kill them,”, said David Berkowitz, the son of Sam. David is one of the many American serial killers that have left our civilization with a destructive impact. The creation of a serial killer goes all the way back to their childhood, which leads them to have a ritual.

Criminals convicted of murder or rape need to be executed because they are danger to society and the human race. Other people still argue that one method of execution is just as brutal as the next. The common sense argument that death is the best deterrent of crime

The act of killing another human being cannot be considered retribution because it is irrational. According to a Jesuit priest and community professor, Raymond Scroth, the cycle of vengeance will never end through the enforcement of the death penalty. Expressing this anger will not get rid of the emotion and will instead grow. Others argue that the death penalty is a form of retribution and the offender receives what he deserves, emphasizing the phrase “an eye for an eye.” It should not be left up to the majority to decide another’s punishment. Continuing the quote. according to Gandhi, “an eye for an eye makes the whole world go

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

Capital punishment has even been accepted by criminal justice experts who consider themselves humanist, concerned with the value, and dignity of human beings. As David Friedrichs, a noted humanist argues, a civilized society has no choice, but to hold responsible those who commit horrendous crimes. The death penalty does make a moral statement. There is behavior that is so unacceptable to a community of human beings that one who engages in such behavior forfeits his or her right to live. However, some might think that capital punishment is morally correct, and others believe that it is straight brutal. Society should not punish criminals by subjecting them to the same acts they committed. For an example, rapists are not sexually assaulted for their acts, and an arsonist does not get his house burned to the ground for burning someone house.

The opposition of capital punishment stems from several reasonable arguments concerning our rights as humans as well as our fallacies. Opponents of execution often argue that killing someone on the basis of legal justice is simply another immoral taking of a life, which in turn raises the question: how valuable is human life? This question is something that is difficult to answer, but I believe that the value of human life is inherit. I also believe that said value can decrease in accordance with one’s actions. Should the life of a child-rapist be equal to that of a community leader? Do they both deserve equally to live? If one discusses this topic, they