Life Is A Precious Thing, Death Is The Great Evil

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 1972, at the time of Supreme Court’s Furman, the majority of public tends to agree with the death penalty. The major reason for support of the death penalty was the serious violent offenders need to be executed in the interest of public safety. However, according to a Gallup poll, supporter for the death penalty dropped from 76 to 53, public started to against the death penalty. Since then, the world has the trend toward of abolishing the death penalty.

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. There is no harsher punishment than death itself. This nation, the United States of America, is currently one of fifty-eight nations that practice the death penalty, if one commits first-degree murder as of 2012. People that believe in the death penalty also believe that it will deter murders. In this paper I will argue that the death penalty does not deter criminals and that this nation should outlaw the practice.

As Robert Blecker, a Professor of Economics and American University, says, “An unpleasant life in prison, a quick but painful death…can help restore a moral balance” (Blecker). Some people agree with the death penalty because of moral fairness; however, some people oppose the death penalty because of family relationship, financial costs with education, false conviction, bias and religious perspective. In the article “With the Death Penalty, Let the Punishment Fit the Crime,” the author Robert Blecker argues about which method of execution would best fit the crime and the unequal situation in prison. Although Blecker explains the reason of death penalty and discusses about choosing better method of execution, based on the research, I oppose

Many people question the need for the death penalty, the execution of those who have committed certain crimes, as a capital punishment. For instance, the author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment”, Jack Greenburg, who is a Professor of Law at Columbia University, argues that the death penalty does not benefit society and is not necessary. Likewise, Kevin Johnson, writer of “Study Finds No Evidence Death Penalty Deters Crime”, also argues against the use of the death penalty by pointing out the flaws in the common research of deterrence. On the other hand, some may also argue for the many aids the death penalty offers. Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy at Fordham University, Ernest Van den Haag, with his “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense”, and authors James M. Reams and Charles T. Putnam, with their article, “Making a Case for the Deterrence Effect of Capital Punishment”, both give arguments for the grander justice the death penalty offers. While each of these articles give very well thought out claims for the necessity of the death penalty, using arguments including racism, and deterrence, Van den Haag’s claim gives the clearest and best arguments.

The use of the death penalty in the United States has always been a controversial topic. The death penalty, also known as Capital Punishment, is a legal process where a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a heinous crime. The judicial decree that someone be punished in this manner is a death sentence, while the actual enforcement is an execution (Bishop 1). Over the years, most of the world has abolished the death penalty. But the United States government, and a majority of its citizens, defend and support its continued use. There is evidence, however, that some attitudes about the death penalty are changing.

Only the most dangerous criminals in the world are faced with society’s ultimate penalty, or at least that is the theory. Capital punishment, commonly referred to as the Death Penalty has been debated for many decades regarding if such a method is ethical. While there are large amounts of supporters for the death penalty as a form of retribution, the process is avoidable financially as taxing for all parties involved. The financial expenses may be better off saved for life imprisonment with an emphasis in restorative justice for victims. Overall, there is unreasonable inefficiency with the capital punishment to justify the taking of another person’s life.

The death penalty is one of the most controversial issues in the United States today. The debate of a life for life is one that has many dimensions and points of views. However, the acceptance of the death penalty is affected by many factors morality, deterrence, retribution, mistakes, cost, race, an income. More specifically the discussion will be based on these three reasons to support the death penalty; the matters of retribution, deterrence and morality.

The death penalty is under a theory call “Just Deserts” Radelet and Akers (1997) suggest that the citizens who commit cirimes should be put under an execution for tributive reasons. These citizens that commit crime should suffer, the effects of life imprisonment are not enough for murdering a person. Some views are worthy to go under a debate, but no research can tell us if an issue is right or wrong. No studies can answer the question of what these citizens or criminals deserve, nor settle debates surrounding the death penalty.

For many years, there has been a debate of whether or not the death penalty is morally justified. This debate has centered on whether humans have the right to take the lives of other human beings and has long divided people politically and socially. People who are in favor of the death penalty believe that, “Intentionally taking the life of an innocent human being is so evil…the perpetrator forfeits his own right to life”(Pojman, 232). Pojman is unambiguous about murderers as evildoers who do not deserve to live. On the other hand, people who are against the death penalty believe that it is morally wrong to take anyone’s life even if that person committed a heinous crime. The consequences of each position may determine its feasibility.

The death penalty’s main argument is morality. Is it wrong or is it right to sentence someone to death for a crime. The idea of capital punishment stems back from the world’s earliest known societies (Garland, 2011). In the United States today the death penalty is used as form of punishment in 32 states. America is a country of opinion, Americans have their own outlook on everything and the death penalty is no different. Many Americans feel capital punishment is wrong and unethical; while other Americans feel it is ethical and needed.

The death penalty has become a heavily debated topic in society, due to the uncertainty of its moral context. Supporters of the death penalty reason that those who have committed blameworthy crimes should have their lives go worse as a result of their actions. They believe in retribution. Protestors of the death penalty believe that it is counterproductive. They say that by legalizing the behavior that the law is trying to prevent, which is killing, they are being hypocritical. William Baude’s article raises the question of whether or not the death penalty is constitutional. The death penalty has plenty of ethical, legal, and moral matters associated with it. The moral dilemma of the death penalty can be viewed from deontological and utilitarian perspectives. Both theories allow the death penalty to be a morally acceptable punishment, but the difference is the reason behind each theory.

This passage presents a discussion about arguments concerning morality of the death penalty. This is an important debate to both proponents and opponents of the death penalty because of the serious implications of the punishment. The two positions argue whether or not the death penalty should be prohibited. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration. For example, evidence indicates that death sentence is both cruel and immoral. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that is a moral punishment for certain offenders. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that the death penalty should not be prohibited is the stronger position, the position supported by the preponderance of the evidence cited in the passage. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of the position that capital punishment should still be used are that it is the only moral punishment for brutal and heinous crimes, that it is more humane than a life long prison sentence, and that it was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, these reasons and opposing viewpoint will be discussed next.

Four major issues in capital punishment are debated, most aspects of which were touched upon by Seton Hall’s panel discussion on the death penalty. The first issue stands as deterrence. A major purpose of criminal punishment is to conclude future criminal conduct. The deterrence theory suggests that a rational person will avoid criminal behavior if the severity of the punishment outweighs the benefits of the illegal conduct. It is believed that fear of death “deters” people from committing a crime. Most criminals would think twice before committing murder if they knew their own lives were at stake. When attached to certain crimes, the penalty of death exerts a positive moral influence, placing a stigma on certain crimes like manslaughter, which results in attitudes of horror to such acts.

The debate on whether or not the death penalty should be abolished has been ongoing for quite a long period of time. While there are those who believe that the death penalty does not serve its intended purpose, proponents of the same are convinced that the relevance of the same cannot be overstated and hence it should not be abolished. In this text, I examine the arguments for and against the death penalty.