Pros And Methods Of Capital Punishment

The death penalty is quickly becoming one of the more controversial topics in the United States. Currently, there are 31 states where capital punishment is legal. As of April 2016, there have been 1,431 executions in the United States, but the number of executions in recent years has been steadily decreasing (Timmons 2017). The death penalty can be put up for moral debate, and one can ask oneself whether the death penalty is ever morally permissible. There are some pros and cons to having capital punishment. For example, deterrence and prevention are good reasons to have the death penalty, but, in reality, the cons far outweigh the possible benefits that may come from capital punishment. The cost of imposing capital punishment is

Capital punishment is one of the most controversial ethical issues that our country faces these days. Capital punishment is the legal penalty of death for a person that has performed heinous acts in the eyes of the judicial system. Discussion on whether capital punishment is humane or considered cruel and unusual punishment has been the main issue this of debate for years. Recent discussion goes far beyond the act itself but now brings into question whether medical personal should aid in this practice.

The death penalty is a very controversial topic and some believe in it and some do not. I believe that capital punishment is a very good idea because it proves to the family of the victim that the state doesn’t only care about the community, but they care about those people in general. Capital punishment is also a great idea because it also keeps the community safe. Capital punishment proves to criminal offenders that the state will take a state and not put up with everything they believe they can get away with. When the state kills those whose guilt is in serious doubt, or when the state kills those to whom it has not given fair justice, it doesn 't just perform an injustice upon the individual, the rule of law, and the Constitution. It also undermines the very legitimacy of the death penalty itself, for its continuing use as a sentencing option derives its civic and moral strength mostly from the fiction that it can be, and is, credibly and reliably imposed (“Capital Punishment”). Supporters of the death penalty argue that it provides the only fair punishment for the most heinous crimes. A prison sentence, even a life sentence without possibility of parole, does not adequately avenge the cruelest and most calculated murders, proponents say. A convicted murderer has taken life, they argue, and the government has a moral obligation to

Not only is the death penalty an economic issue, it is also a morally wrong. We live in a culture where murder is unacceptable in society, yet people placate themselves by killing murderers to punish them for their actions through capital punishment. According to Charles Peguy, "We said that a single injustice, a single crime, a single illegality, particularly if it is officially recorded, confirmed...that a single crime shatters and is sufficient to shatter the whole social pact, the whole social contract, that a single legal crime, a single dishonorable act will bring about the loss of one's honor, the dishonor of a whole people." It is often forgotten that many of the criminals being sentenced to death have a mother, a father, and loved ones who are innocent of any sort of crime who will lose a loved one from capital punishment. The use of the death penalty not only causes grief to the family of the victim, but also to the family of the killer. While the death penalty is meant to punish a criminal for a crime they committed, the only result it has is causing people to suffer because of something a family member did that resulted them to be executed.

The following essay explores the pros and cons of capital punishment. A brief history of how capital punishment was introduced into modern society is included. Various resources have been used for research which include online articles, studies, and textbook references. This paper suggests the costs of capital punishment to be very high, but brings closure and justice to families, and even brings forth new evidence in some cases. While this form of punishment is seen as inhumane to some, it has been a successful method in various cases that are mentioned in this essay. This paper will conclude with the authors personal viewpoint

A Social problem can be defined in several ways: by an influential group which defines a social condition to be threatening its values; when the condition affects a large number of people; and when the condition can be remedied by collective action. The subject of this discussion is the death penalty, also known as capital punishment, as a social problem(Sullivan, 2016). Capital punishment is a highly debated topic, and issues lie within the suggestions on both sides of the problem, whether it's to place more criminals on death row or to replace the death penalty with life without parole. But one solution which can help solve problems on both sides is to devote some time to the restructuring and purpose of our prison systems. If prison became more about rehabilitation instead of punishment, many of these problems could be solved.

Capital punishment, otherwise better known as the death penalty, has been instituted in the United State’s constitution for centuries with the purpose of being a deterrent to dangerous crimes and murder. However, as time has passed since capital punishment has been established, there has been much controversy seen regarding the issue leaving American citizens divided amongst themselves. With some opposing the validity of this form of punishment and others defending it, the debate revolving around this contentious aspect of the United State’s legal system is still raging in the modern era. While it has many supporters, the United States government should not allow for the death penalty to remain legal.

For hundreds of years, capital punishment has been the solution to crimes committed by the people of the United States and many other countries which leads to an endless debate on whether the death penalty should exist or should be abolished. Many people may support the death penalty because the convicted will get what they deserve. On the contrary, those who oppose the death penalty bring up the reasoning of the wrongly convicted. The clash of these debates has created a large amount of controversy.

A long, notorious trial, where the ultimate crime is committed, is taking place. Hard work and long hours contribute to the trial. Countless evidence and testimony is reviewed allowing the jury to settle on a verdict. As the jury reaches its verdict convicting the defendant guilty, the judge begins sentencing giving the man a chance of life in prison without parole or a sentence to death. But what is the greatest punishment given to those convicted of capital punishment, is it life in prison or the death penalty? The death penalty dates back to ancient times and has been around since then. Today it is still practice but has been debated whether it is constitutional and if it should still be used today and in the future.”We should construct our punishments more nearly to fit their crimes -- neither much more nor much less than what they deserve”(Blecker). Those who commit grisly acts of capital offenses should be made to pay the ultimate price and sentenced to the death penalty.

In the United States more than 1,423 people have been put to death since 1976, when the Supreme Court alleviated the moratorium on capital punishment (McKeown). Capital punishment is act of killing inmates performed by state for serious crimes. The death penalty is applied unfairly towards people. Also, it goes against the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment to individuals. Capital punishment ought to be abolished due to the state killing in discriminatory ways. The opposition claims that the death penalty is effective for deterring crime and not imposed enough. However, there are other alternatives for punishment, such as life without parole.

Capital punishment is defined in the dictionary as, “the practice of killing people as punishment for serious crimes” (“capital punishment”). Murder is defined in the dictionary as, “the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with a malice aforethought” (“murder”). If murder is wrong, what does that make of capital punishment? The only difference between these two is that one is a legal form of murder and the other is not. There are currently 31 states that use the death penalty that should abolish it on the grounds of: accidentally executing an innocent, the high-cost of carrying out an execution, trauma to families and executioners, and for the simplest reason of all, “to end the perpetual cycle of violence…it is wrong to teach killing is wrong by killing” (Fisanick 29)

Capital Punishment has been up for debate as early as the 1700s. Human rights activists, religious groups, and economists have been consistent stakeholders in protest again capital punishment. Human rights activists believe that no judge or jury should be able to decide whether someone lives or dies. Religious groups consider all life to be sacred. And economists have proven that the death penalty is very costly on taxpayers.

As of August 2017, capital punishment is legal in 31 US states. As of April 28, 2017, since 1973, 1,458 people have been executed in total. The problem lies in the fact that, despite counter arguments, there are many flaws that lie in the concept of capital punishment. The practice of the death penalty inadvertently manages to disprove any argument in support of it and in the end, is only used to set a warped sense of false justice.

When a capital punishment case is reversed, it can create potential complications to present, future and past court cases. One of the main arguments debated is when a case is reversed because of intellectual disability. People question past cases where offenders might have had intellectual disability and did not receive the same treatment as a case that has been reversed. For example, Cecil Clayton (who killed a police officer), he was executed on March 17, 2015. Clayton was missing twenty percent of his brain due to an accident in 1972. After psychiatrists examined Clayton, they concluded:

What in the world would be the punishment for the most brutal killers beside the death penalty? Historically, people have been murdering people mostly because of either how popular they are or how wealthy they are. Such as In In Cold Blood, the author stated that the two killers killed the entire family in one night intentionally just because of hatred or thievery. The judges of the court must give Dick and Perry Smith the death penalty because the most brutal killers should be eliminated in order to assure that one day these killers cannot come out of prison and commit another crime.