The Consequences Of Capital Punishment In Julius Ceaser

In this paper I will be discussing everything you need to know about the death penalty such as its pros and cons. While the innocent can be killed, the death penalty has its pros because it prevents them from killing again if they are released or have escaped from prison, it helps overpopulated prisons, and it can help victims’ families get justice and closure. Not only can the innocent be killed, but in the past the death penalty was very inhumane. To some its feels right but to others they feel like 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Most people think that the defendant deserves the death penalty, but what does the defendants’ family think?

Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.

Would it be true that capital punishment saves lives? Edward Koch, in his article “Death and Justice” believes it does. Koch, using common techniques to influence his audience, suggests that killers should be handled within this tried and avenged form of punishment. Koch opens his article by quoting convicted murderers Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw, both in the last moments of their lives pleading for the justice system to put a stop to the endless cycle of killing. Using simple logic, Koch argues that the sudden changing of the killers’ moral character is not a result of remorse for the victims, but rather an attempt to save their own lives from the killing hands of the justice system. Koch effectively uses these quotes to suggest to the reader that a killer might have thought twice about his/her own actions if the death sentence were a belief.

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.

“Enjoy life today, yesterday is gone and tomorrow may never come,” said an unknown author. The death penalty faces many pros and cons as to why it should be legal and illegal. Capital punishment is another name for the death penalty. So many people are clueless as to what the death penalty even is or what it does. The death penalty is the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. Crimes to be punished by death differs from every state and country. Usually the death penalty comes to action when the capital crime is murder or rape; capital offense usually means bail will not be an option. Even though the death penalty gives closure to the victim’s families who have suffered so much, the death penalty

The death penalty till this day remains to be a very controversial topic. Some people may argue that it should be considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment; others may rebuttal in saying that the death penalty is capital punishment. When visiting the idea of placing someone to death one must bear in mind the possibility of condemning an innocent person through such torture, the brutalizing effect on society it may leave, and the serious psychological trauma that a defendants family and friends may face. Is this really what the justice system is willing to place on the line in order to gain a form of so called justice. I mean reasonably speaking what will anyone gain from such an action. It definitely will not bring the harm to be undone. As stated in the encyclopedia under the theory of judicial torture “ the use of torture was confined to capital crimes, for which the death penalty or mutilation could apply” (PIHLAJAM, 2004). Looking at how the death penalty is conducted people should not be treated like animals, given a due time to be put down. No human being deserves such treatment whether or not his or her offense was so horrific and traumatic. Is that not the lesson being taught to society when the criminal is captured? Yet, the law as a jury of peers, men just like the accused, may cast the same sin upon him. Why should this action be considered in any way to be fair or believed to be capital punishment?

William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar is one of his most monumental plays that cover Julius Caesar’s death and the fallout after it. He got the material for this play from a Greek writing called the Life of Julius Caesar. This was actually a famous biography written by Plutarch in the first century, I was later translated by Sir Thomas North in 1579. Published in 1599 this play is assumed to be the first to be ever preformed in the famous Globe Theater, it was a smash success that moved audiences. This play has stood the test of time being regarded as a timeless masterpiece and work of perfection. Shakespeare did this by displaying deep moving characters, vibrant and astounding settings, and intriguing points of view in Julius Caesar.

Should Julius Caesar have been killed? This question has plagued history for years without a real answer. Julius Caesar was corrupt and all powerful, and his death saved Rome. It really is that simple; he declared himself dictator for life and ignored the Senate’s power. A man with that much power can only hurt a nation.

Justice is often found after a situation has occurred and more times than not it is seen through the eyes of revenge. Marc Antony, the main character, partakes in this reality by trying to get revenge on Julius Caesar’s, Marc Antony’s best friend, death. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare literally and symbolically delves into the choices that one makes when seeking revenge in the name of justice.

Some individuals believe that justice is only served when an offender’s punishment has effects of the some degree to that of their victim in relation to the crime committed against them. In this case, they argue that execution is a more punishments compared to other forms of punishments aimed to help the criminal reform; since the sentence makes the criminal suffer in a similar degree to their victims. However those opposing capital punishment argue that a sentence is meant to help on to reform and learn from their mistakes. However ones an offender is executed via the death sentence nothing is learnt since one cannot learn when dead. As a result in such a case the justice did not have any impact nor serve its purpose.

This can be a sticky issue when the subject of the death penalty is involved. A strong case could be made that when a subject agrees to such an evaluation, he or she may in fact be harmed by it’s results. A final factor to consider is future risk of dangerousness. While many researchers have found that future dangerousness is over compensated for, the best predictor for future behavior is still past behavior. Questions of guilt and remorse should be explored. These questions should not be in reference to the subject being caught or punished, but in regard to the harm they have inflicted on others and society in general. A callous attitude towards human life and it’s taking, should be strongly considered when evaluating a capital

Capital punishment which is also known as the death penalty refers to the court-ordered execution of a prisoner. It is a punishment of a serious crime called the capital offense and generally involves felony murder and more. Not all states have laws that support the death penalty but those that do are prisoners sentenced to death. There are people who agree with the death penalty because people see capital punishment as payment for murder. Those who oppose capital punishment like me argue that the death penalty is unjust, immoral, and indefensible state sanctioned murder of a human being. Even though they have committed a heinous crime, that vengeance is not the answer for healing the grief of victim’s families or communities or other loved ones. It does not act as a deterrent to crime, and is not an acceptable alternative to long-term imprisonment because the death penalty carries the possibility of wrongful execution of an innocent person.

Imagine your loved one is gunned down on the street by a person who admits to the killing but shows no remorse. The penalty for this type of crime is the death penalty, but his or her sentence is commuted to life in prison. Would you be angry with the judicial system? Would you have faith in our criminal justice system? Capital Punishment, also known as the death penalty, refers to punishment by death imparted to a person by a state or a legal entity for certain crimes. Many Americans believe that the death penalty is not the solution for capital crimes, but a waste of time and money. On the other hand, they argue that awareness of the death penalty deters others from committing similar acts. Judicial officials have become timider when sentencing offenders to death in fear of the legal backlash from groups not in favor of the death penalty. The death penalty has been around for many years, with many governments abolishing capital punishment. The first established death penalty laws date back to the Eighteenth Century B.C., during the time period of King Hammurabi of Babylon. During this period, death sentences were carried out by such means as crucifixions, drownings, impalements, being burned alive, and being beaten to death. Later in history, under Great Britain 's Henry VII, 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed under Hammurabi 's laws. When the

The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge.

From an early age, children are taught that murder is morally wrong. In today’s complex society that is impeded by unsettling periods of civil unrest, it is an expectation for everyone to acknowledge and accept that murder is one of the worst crimes individuals can commit. Perhaps it can be said that the death penalty is one of our legal system’s biggest contradictions of itself, as, if someone commits murder (or another heinous crime of that caliber), such ‘murderers’ will, in states that have capital punishment laws, be sent to Death Row and ultimately murdered in order to prevent potential future crimes by such perpetrators. I believe that the death penalty is wrong not only as it is immoral to take a life, but also, such ineffective laws waste money and do not deter crime.