Persuasive Essay Against Death Penalty

Assuming that the killer is capable of such reasoning shows us the arrogance of our kind. In fact, "those who commit violent crimes often do so in moments of passion, rage and fear - times when irrationality reigns" (Information, "Capital Punishment" 107). Killing a human being as prevention to crime is, in essence, using a human being as a means rather than an ends.

Opponents of the death penalty believe capital punishment is unnecessary and inappropriate in our modern

capital punishment vary from it being morally right or wrong, humane or inhumane, to the

In the case of capital punishment, a person should not be punished for something they did or didn’t commit. It is not

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

I, myself, don’t support the death penalty and I believe it’s unethical. There has have been many cases where someone has been sentenced to death row and then after they had already been executed, officials found out that they had the wrong person in custody, and once this is done it can’t be undone. Run on sentence, but it is an important point to make. Add an article citation here that has an example of this. There is also the fighting fire with fire argument, that killing someone for killing someone else doesn’t solve anything or make it justified. It doesn’t seem to make sense to say that “Because you killed someone, we’re going to get back at you by killing you.” This is called “retributive justice” Also, if the death penalty wasn’t enacted, these criminals could end up spending the rest of their lives in prison with the guilt and this could be a more harshharsher punishment than just being put to death. In some of the cases, it is family members or friends that

Although through the video we see that the father/husband William Petit, he has no desire for the two men to die. But, he would rather the two men suffer in jail for the rest of their lives and let their guilt eat them alive. MSNBC Live spoke with Richard Cohen of The Washington Post about the death penalty in light of Steven Hayes being sentenced to death after his brutal home invasion and murder of a mother and her children. His claim that the two gentlemen should not receive the death penalty. Cohen’s reasoning is that the Death penalty justifies killing another person, “It sort of vindicates the thinking of the killer. He can kill, you can kill”. He then uses other countries as support describing that other countries throughout the world have stop using such barbaric punishments such as Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, and Yemen still use the death penalty as a form of punishment. The warrant is that the death penalty should stop being used as a form of

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

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".

Thousands of people will attack the death penalty. They will give emotional speeches about the one innocent man or woman who might accidentally get an execution sentence. However, all of these people are forgetting one crucial element. They are forgetting the thousands of victims who die every year by the hands of heartless murderers. There are more murderers out there than people who are wrongly convicted, and that is what we must remember.

When DeFeo returned with his bar buddies, the remaining bodies of his four siblings were found dead, each in their own bed. Every family member was found shot to death, and laying face down in their pillows. Alarmed for his safety, the police held DeFeo overnight.

On the contrary, there is no doubt that killing is a sin, and it is inhumane to take away another person’s life. Opponents of death penalty state that capital punishment is immoral and unfair. The Jewish Social Policy Action Network (2008) which is against capital punishment believes that death penalty may induce in children wrong notions about usage of violence in resolving conflicts, thus claims that it is immoral to practice death penalty. According to ACLU (2007) death penalty is against morality, justice and no one should

The case for capital punishment can best be understood by examining the opposition's arguments against capital punishment. Opponents of capital punishment say the death penalty does not deter crime and is cruel and unusual. Opponents may also argue that capital punishment is a blood thirsty judicial homicide that benefits no one. Are they right to believe a murderer is entitled to our sympathy?

Even though supporters argue that death penalty is a relief to the family of a person who was murdered by the convicted criminal; it is not true, their pain cannot be healed through the retribution or vengeance by death penalty. Therefore, killing a criminal cannot overcome a crime nor bring back the life of the person who was killed by the person convicted of murder.

No issue posed by capital punishment is more disturbing to the public than the prospect that the government might execute innocent people. Proponents to the death penalty are, of course, also against executing an innocent person (Hook and Kahn 91). Most everyone would agree that killing someone is wrong. Proponents and opponents agree that murder is a heinous act and should be punished. Despite their hatred for those who kill, proponents support the killing of murderers as a just punishment for their deviant behaviors. In this sense, execution can be termed, “legal murder” because “executions shares enough of the characteristics of murder to be counted as part of the general category: it includes a victim who does not want to die, and an agent that nonetheless kills [the victim]” (Yanich 98]. Murder is synonymous with kill, as found in the Britannica- Webster Dictionary. To kill is to deprive one of life or to put one to death and murder implies motive and intent or premeditation. With respect