Due to the brutality of capital punishment, two human rights are breached when the death penalty is used on convicted criminals: the right to life and the right to live free from torture. Rights for humans are tremendously important to the human race. They are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“Death Penalty”). Within the Universal Declaration, the right to life and to live free from torture are protected. When a person is executed, the death penalty violates both of them. The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another human being (“Death Penalty”). The judge sentencing a person to death is breaking the human right …show more content…
Occurrences like these have happened before with different types of execution methods. Frank J. Coppola, a convicted murderer, was executed by an electric chair in Virginia on August 10, 1982. An attorney who was present at the time of the execution stated that it took “two 55-second jolts of electricity to kill Coppola” (Radelet). On the second jolt, an odor of burning flesh and a sound of sizzling flesh was produced according to the attorney. The second jolt also made Coppola's “head and legs catch on fire” (Radelet). With the burning flesh, his body limbs catching fire, and sounds of sizzling flesh, makes Coppola's execution an act of a quick and painless death fail. It is not a painless death if one's body limbs catch on fire and their skin starts to sizzle. Another occurrence of a quick and painless death fail was on September 15, 2009 in the state of Ohio. Romell Broom tried to be executed by lethal injection multiple times, but the injections would never work. The executioners could not find a vein in his arms or legs and while trying Broom’s stomach kept heaving (“Botched Executions”). Romell Broom never died and is still currently on death row, but as his stomach was heaving during his execution, displays an act of a failed painless death. With all of these gruesome failed ways of execution, it still does not act as a deterrent to
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
America is within the top four countries for the number of executions due to the death penalty since 1999. Citing the, “Amnesty International in For What Tomorrow (2004), more than 1,800 people were executed in 31 countries, the vast majority of these in China (1076), Iran (165), Saudi Arabia (103), and then the United States (98)” (NAAS, 43). The death penalty is currently an intense debate involving the idea of whether or not we as people should be able to sentence another person to death. According to the ethical and moral reasoning of the philosophers Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer, and Hugo Bedau, the death penalty should not be a legal punishment.
The death penalty also known as capital punishment is an execution in which the person who committed the offence is put to death by the state. It was first practiced in Jamestown colony, 1608. The person was hanged for spying for the Spanish government and was the 1st person sentenced to death in America. Since then, it has been a form to punish the criminals for committing such heinous crimes and putting end to violence and crime rates. Despite how people agree that the death penalty is justifiable, however; it still violates the international human rights laws. These laws were created to protect the lives of all human beings including the criminals, who some might agree they do not deserve to live. Even though some might say that the
Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty, is a controversial subject which has been argued for decades due to the ethical decisions involved. People believe the death penalty is the right thing to do and that it is the perfect example of ‘justice’ while others believe that it is immoral and overly expensive. The death penalty is not a logical sentence for criminals, it doesn’t give them the right type of justice and it is immoral.
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.
It is often argued that the death penalty should be continued because of the establishment of the eighth amendment. However, the eighth amendment contradicts with the basic human right or “right to life”. The Universal Declaration of Human rights states in Article 3 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” (United Nations 1). Also, in Article 5 it states “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” (United Nations 1). Therefore, the death
Throughout history, societies have witnessed deviance and criminality among its citizens, and criminologists have spent centuries attempting to understand what causes deviance, why do people act how they act and do what they do. No matter how criminals come to be, the criminal justice systems have consequences in place in order to maintain peace in the communities. One of these consequences is capital punishment, the authorized killing of a person as punishment for a crime, and in most states in the United States of America, lethal injection is the common practice used for ending the life of someone. In one state particularly, Arizona, many citizens are calling for a reexamination of the death penalty due to its effect on the economy and crime rate, and how it is arbitrarily applied within the criminal justice system.
The majority of national constitutions and international treaties promote and guarantee the right to life, which demands that not even a single individual or body has the power to take another person’s life. The only exception that the previously mentioned provides is where there is an act of self-defence or war. Sine capital punishment does not fall under any of the exceptions what so ever; it falls under the classification of murder committed by the State. According to the majority of capital punishment critics, life falls into the category of unalienable rights. As a result, one cannot forfeit another’s right to life just because they have committed an
In conclusion the death penalty is an inhuman act of torture that doesn’t solve criminal justice. There should not be a death penalty because of the inhumanity and disregards of of human rights. The criminal process is abused and should not be used to prevent crime with the imposition of the death penalty(the death penalty 2013). There are a lot of citizens in numerous countries that are still unaware that the death penalty is a form of brutalization not protection.in the artical stating the death penalty does not deter crime they say Abolition is gaining ground, but not fast enough this is true is that state that many are still getting killed without justice being served( the death penalty 2009) . There should not be a death penalty because it violates human rights, it does not deter crime, and is a cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty does not deter crime it increases it.
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.
If everything was done correctly, the execution would be finished in a matter of seconds. Unfortunately, that was not usually the case, and the deaths were slow and painful. The end results of a hanging consisted of the eyes popping out of their sockets, protruding tongue, bloated face, defecation, and severe jerking of the body and appendages (Descriptions”).
In the 21th century, killing people is immoral and inhumane although they are prisoners. Thus, many countries in the world have a huge issue that jail are not sufficient and then in the world’s society was debating about should prisoners can select alternatives to death or a life sentence. This essay will indicate two significant points that prisoners who were serving a life sentence should have the right to die.
Criminal law is imposed by almost every nation in the world to reduce crime rate and maintain law and order of the society. An individual who found guilty of a crime will have to face corresponding punishments. Among all penalties, capital punishment is considered to be the most severe and cruelest one which takes away criminal’s most valuable right in the world, that is, right to live. It is a heated debate for centuries whether capital punishment should be completely abolished world widely. The world seems to have mixed opinion regarding this issue. According to Amnesty International (2010), currently, 97 countries in the world have already abolished capital punishment while only 58 nations still actively adopt death penalty.
Capital Punishment was adopted by America when the state of Virginia carried out the colonies’ first execution in 1608 (“History of the Death Penalty”). Since then, usage of the death penalty has been instituted by 36 states, making execution the ultimate form of punishment. Although in theory the death penalty seems like a viable method of punishment, in practice, it has serious flaws that damage the integrity of the state. Capital Punishment has been falsely idolized as a deterrent, applied unfairly for generations, used as a vehicle for revenge, and made people blind to the fact that life in prison without parole is an equally acceptable form of punishment. The death penalty is an
Bright, Stephen B.: "The death penalty as the answer to crime: costly, counterproductive and corrupting"; 35 Santa Clara Law Review 1211 (1995)
In America many people believed that death penalty was the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantees of due process of law and of equal protection under the law. Now, we believe that the state should not give itself the right to kill human beings – especially when it kills with happiness and with ceremony, in the name of the law or in the name of its people, and now we could vote if there could be death penalty.