The Death Penalty Is Unconstitutional

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”.

Retribution is what most commonly referred to as the “just deserts” model that says the punishment should match the “degree of harm a criminal has inflicted on their victims” (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). In other words,

The death penalty was also used as a mean to deteriorate the rise of murders. A way to scare people from committing the act. This of course is not the case(Depauw). Marshall and Bedau saw the death penalty and retributivism through a similar microscope. Marshall who was against the thought of the death penalty as retribution stated in his dissenting opinion of the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) case: “ The notion that retribution can serve as a moral justification for the sanction of death... I find to be the most disturbing aspect of today's unfortunate decisions…”(ProCon). According to Marshall retribution was a form of revenge which is low as it can get in his opinion. To allow the death penalty to him was to allow revenge to occur and not the laws of the land to prevail. Thurgood Marshall wanted justice to be served in reactions to crime, not revenge or allowing the emotions which was in high demand to conquer the court system. This is what he suggests about the theory of retribution. This in itself is also a form of utilitarian because in order to please others they will give the murderer the death penalty. Utilitarianism is to maximize utility or to maximize happiness. In order to fulfill this, to maximise happiness, it would be at the expense of the convicted.

Contradictory to Schorth, Robert Blecker goes on to that this punishment is not meant for revenge, using it as revenge would be as if we were using a person to send a message, the death penalty is much larger than that. We should kill for one reason and one reason only: They deserve it, in three words. In one word: justice”(Blecker). The death penalty is not used for revenge nor it does not continue a cycle, it ends the cycle. Criminals, such as the ones in the cases above, take from people, they take their lives, their peace, and their liberties in order to give themselves undeserved

But I submit that such a philosophical foundation is flawed. Revenge while understandable from an individual human perspective is not a proper basis for society 's response to the misbehavior of its laws. This human urge to punish should be removed from the current system and replaced with methods of restrictions that utilize the offender 's potential to benefit his victim and society at large.

In this essay, I will argue that equal punishment and proportional retribution do not justify the use of the death penalty. First, I will argue that equal punishment is too specific and literal because it stems from the idea that one crime is deserving of that exact crime in the form of a legal punishment. In the case of murder, that belief would condone punishing murder with murder. We can’t justify some killings while condemning others. By giving permission to someone to execute another human being on the grounds of the death penalty, we are allowing him or her to kill another human being for killing. This creates a cycle of murder. Second, I will argue that proportional retribution does not leave the death penalty as the only option for punishment. However, it does give much room for interpretation and is not specific enough regarding alternative punishments. It would allow us to rank crimes according to severity and dole out punishments according to that scale. I will also bring up how retributive justice does not completely delve into the concept of who deserves to deliver the punishment to the murderer. Retributive justice is simply a means of attempting to legally inflict suffering upon another human being for their wrongful actions.

One of the biggest questions, not only in literature, but in natural life, is if revenge is an acceptable excuse to take a life? In simpler terms, can revenge, under any circumstance, ever be justified? People across time have tried to argue for and against the idea that taking a life for revenge is justifiable. People like Heinrich Heine, a German poet, journalist, and literary critic, believe that “we should forgive our enemies, but not before they are hanged.” In other words, take revenge on enemies and then forgive what they have done.

Nonetheless preventing future crimes are not the only purpose for punishment.. Rather one reasoning maybe for past crimes committed. As opposed to utilitarian philosophy retribution focuses on past crimes and that punishment should be equivalent to the offence. This approach has dated back historically to the Hammurabi code one of the earliest writings in history. The concept

The concept of retribution is generated if someone commit a crime that very bad and people are afraid to speak out because of fear of retribution. The retributive theory is punishing the offender by taking away their advantage that they might have gained from their criminal or illegal actions. Due to this theory offenders deserve to be punished for the wrongful acts they have committed. (Meyer, 2003)

The thought of retribution as a form of capital punishment makes a whole lot of sense too many people. According to Adams (2004) “Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that it is proper to take an "eye for an eye" and a life for a life” (p.1). People have come to believe that if one has done something horrible they should be punished for their actions regardless of religion. When a life is taken by a person the equilibrium of fairness becomes deeply disturbed by nature. The fairness of the life that was taken if it does not receive any justice the people will uproar into violence. The taking of the killer’s life can restore the balance that society needs and shows society that murder itself is intolerable with a hefty consequence attached to it. The taking of the murder’s life will not bring back the victim to their family but it will bring the closure needed for the killer’s crime. The death penalty is needed for the heinous crimes that deserve the worst punishment possible under the law. Any less punishment then this is merely undermining the value that society places on protecting lives. (http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument2a.htm) Elizabeth Adams

Introduction: Quote: “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind” - Mahatma Gandhi. Philosophical Statement: I think revenge should not be included in justice and punishments. Points are: It poses the enforcers of law as scary and mean instead of protecting guardians, It makes criminals angry instead of learning from mistakes (reformation), and Gandhi quote; taking revenge will only make bad things worse.

Inflicting harm can be justified only to prevent something worse, and so retribution for its own sake has no part to play in a fair system of justice. Those who disagree and believe that retribution does have a place in the criminal justice, it cannot justify the evils we find in prisons today. The system's gross lack of proportionality, its failure to treat like cases alike, and its harmful consequences for prisoners and communities are incompatible with a humane and decent

Under the theory of retribution, it is important to protect the legitimate rights of both society and the offender. Society shows respect for the free will of the wrong doer through punishment. Punishment shows respect for the wrong doer because it allows an offender to pay the debt to society and then return to society theoretically free of guilt. In order to commit a crime you have the ability to choose to do a wrong act through free will. By choosing to commit a bad act the offender receives a deserved punishment which society thinks of as a respect for the offender. In addition, the punishment shows respect for the offender by letting him/her leave after punishment guilt free because he/she received what he/she deserved. Under my argument

I will be talking about the history of capital punishment, and why others believe it is okay. Capital punishment is when someone has committed a crime in which they are sentenced to death. In this paper I will be arguing that the death penalty is okay.

The purpose of the retribution should be to deter the offender from committing the crime by inflicting equal punishment on him. This will send a message to the society that those who commit crime will not be spared.