The Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty

The very concept of “Ahimsa” states that “cause no injury, do not harm.” Every living thing has the privilege to change him or herself. By taking one’s life, is also taking their privilege to change. To change is an option but death is not. Human beings are believed to be flawed and imperfect, and assuming and scaling their whole personality for an act, are unjust. The phrase “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is wrongfully taken. You do not kill somebody who killed somebody. Kill a killer and their numbers won’t change. In addition, the fact that they’re allegedly accused of being an offender and are thus, killed, are already depriving them of due process. It’s even frightening that with a mere pull of a trigger, also triggers the force that takes out the chance 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

"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by ... any … kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing ... from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree." (Cornell) First-degree murder is very clear in its definition in US law. On the fateful night of November 14, 1959, Perry Edward Smith and Richard Eugene Hickock seemed to have completely disregarded that very law when they made the decision to murder the innocent Clutter family after a planned robbery attempt and murder for cover up. Herbert and Bonnie Clutter and two of their children, Nancy and Kenyon Clutter, were brutally slain that night only for a total gain of fifty dollars for the killers. For the brutal murders of the Clutter family, Perry Smith and Richard Hickock should undoubtedly be punished by receiving the death penalty.

As Cass R states… “Capital punishment may be morally required, not for retributive reasons, but rather to prevent the taking of innocent lives”. Death penalty is one of those extreme punishments that would create fear in the mind of any person. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.

The death penalty has been battered backwards and forwards by the questions of abolishment and replacement, with mixed results. There seems to a jagged line in the sand on where people stand, and due to the continuous use today (albeit at a slower clip than in the past), it is still very much a prevalent topic of punishment. Those who argue for it believe that taking it away will take away a great deterrent, that families find peace, and that those who commit egregious crimes deserve only death. Anything less “would fail to do justice because the penalty – presumably a long period in prison – would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime” (“Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments,” 2016). Those who don’t believe in this punishment as a modern-day, useful tool of deterrence and punishment for crime, continuously counter these arguments, as well as any others, daily at every turn. Though many states have made it illegal, others placing moratoriums or refusals to use it, the death penalty can still be found active today. But why can’t it be replaced with life without parole, and it if can why should it?

The death penalty has been around for ages, but criticism about the death penalty is new. The has been criticism has soared to a new high because some people believe it is inhuman. In recent years debate about death penalty has risen to a new height. The pros and cons of the death penalty are being weighed in court rooms across America because of court cases killing innocent people. While the cons have noble intentions behind them for saving a human life. The pros far outweigh the cons because certain situations, the only true justice is through the death penalty. The death penalty is beneficial to America due to the cost of keeping prisoners in prison, and it is the only moral way to punish some crimes while also keeping some crimes from happening.

The death penalty is supposed to deter murder and bring the justice that the murder families of the victims should be rewarded (Hyden). Although many scientific researches can conclude that it does not deter murder and the members of the murder victims’ family have rejected/rejecting the program because it retraumatizes them with long process of trials, appeals, and of course the media (Hyden). In contrast, a sentence of life in prison is certain and instant, allowing the families to move on knowing that the justice of the crime is being served. Comparing whether or not the death penalty should be legalized, the reasons as to why it shouldn’t be, are strong enough to change one person’s mind. The death penalty still should be illegal in the United States.

    The death penalty is an overkill of our society’s morality. Our humanity will be lost if we allow the death penalty. Humanity consists of our ability to have moral considerations towards life which is looking at more than just happiness that utilitarians tend to do. Innocence, being understanding, valuing people and things in life, and being virtuosic are views that keeps our humanity. There comes a time when people act off of emotions and decide to push away their morals.  Some may consider killing someone for their crime, but that makes us just as bad as them. Now, we are the killer. People have impulses that can become irrational and

“We oppose the death penalty for what it does to those guilty of heinous crimes, but for what it does to all of us; it offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life” by Joseph Fiorenza states that the death penalty is cruel and unjust. It may take lives of all those who are wrongfully convicted and may cost people millions of dollars. However, some may argue that the death of a criminal may bring closure to families of victims.

It seems rational to think that if potential killers are aware that if they commit serious crimes they could be put to death for it, they are less likely to commit these crimes. Another strong point of this concept is the retribution and justice bestowed to society. The community demands a sense of closure, that justice be served. This is imperative for peace to be maintained. If criminals were allowed to get away with such a serious crime as the taking of human life, fear and chaos would rule. A sentence of life in prison is not substantial enough. The government must be trusted to permanently protect its innocent citizens from further crime.

The death penalty has been debated for centuries. Within just America, it dates back all the way to 1608. In an article entitled “History of the Death Penalty” from the website Death Penalty Information Center, it states, “The first recorded execution in the new colonies was that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain.” So, it is safe to say that the death penalty has been around for a long time, and has been debated by many for just as long. Most people will claim that they are against the death penalty with no reason other than they believe it is immoral and wrong. Those people simply do not know the facts of how the death penalty actually helps the American Justice System. The death penalty prevents overcrowding in prisons, reoffenders, and is cheaper to the taxpayers.

While criminals must be punished for their criminal actions, “legalized murder”, as author Coretta Scott King put it, is immoral. The death penalty is legalizing the very thing that many on death row are charged for, murder. There is a multitude of lawful alternatives, to the death penalty, of reestablishing a better reputation for the criminals. The Constitution has no true right to allow such a felonious form of rehabilitation.

According to Listverse “the execution (death penalty) does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal.” Clouser has changed the way we talk about the rationale for the death penalty. Families of the victim most of the time take years to recover from the loss of their loved one. The death penalty helps this by taking the life of a person who committed a crime and provides closure to the victim's family. Families of the victim most of the time take years to recover from the loss of their loved one. Life in prison just means the criminal is still around to haunt the victim's family. A death sentence brings finality to a horrible episode in the lives of the victim's family. The institution of capital punishment or also known as the death penalty must exist to give closure to the victim’s

There are so many pro’s as to why we as a country need the death penalty. One of those reasons are, it provides closure for the victims, and or family members. The death penalty ensures families, and surviving victims that the murderer will be not be able to strike again. For example, a surviving victim will never feel closure unless the murderer himself is put to death. Meanwhile, the less fortunate ones who were murdered, raped, kidnapped, and etc. will never find closure until that person gets what they deserve.

According to The death penalty information center they say “since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder”, the death of another person should not be taken lightly it should be a strong punishable crime. If the death penalty was the right away punishment for murder people would stop killing each other and then nobody would have to worry about getting murdered.