Theoretical Justification Of Capital Punishment

Edward I. Koch uses his essay “The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?” to defend capital punishment. He believes that justice for murderous crimes is essential for the success of the nation. The possibility of error is of no concern to Koch and if would-be murderers can be deterred from committing these heinous crimes, he feels the value of human life will be boosted and murder rates will consequently plummet (475-479). Koch makes a valiant effort to express these views, yet research contradicts his claims and a real look at his idea of justice must be considered in order to create a fair nation for all.

Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.

Capital Punishment, also known as the Death Penalty, has been a part of the United State’s justice system for the majority of the country’s existence. Today, 31 out of the 50 states still recognize the death penalty as a viable option when dealing with high profile crimes, most notably murder and sexual assault. While many people argue that the death penalty should be made illegal, there is also widespread support in favor of keeping the death penalty, leaving the nation divided on the issue. Both sides of the argument possess valid evidence that supports their claims, but in the end, the arguments in favor of the death penalty are noticeably stronger. The death penalty is an appropriate sentence that should continue to be allowed in the

The legitimacy of the use of capital punishment has been tarnished by its widespread misuse , which has clouded our judgment regarding the justifiability of the death penalty as a punitive measure. However, the problems with capital punishment, such as the “potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness and racial skew" , are not a basis for its abolition, as the world of homicide suffer from these problems more acutely. To tackle this question, one must disregard the currently blemished universal status quo and purely assess the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty as a punitive measure. Through unprejudiced examination of the death penalty and its consequential impacts, it is evident that it is a punishment that effectively serves its retributive, denunciatory, deterrent, and incapacitative goals.

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.

Capital Punishment is a moral controversy in today’s society. It is the judicial execution of criminals judged guilty of capital offenses by the state, or in other words, the death penalty. The first established death penalty laws can date back to the Eighteenth Century B.C. and the ethical debates towards this issue have existed just as long. There is a constant pro-con debate about this issue, and philosophers like Aristotle and Mill have their own take on this controversy as well. Aristotle is against capital punishment, while Mill believes it is morally permissible.

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

In the debate over capital punishment, the opponents argue that capital punishment should not be practiced because it has a civilizing effect and practicing capital punishment has do deterrent effect. On the other side of the debate, the supporters argue that capital punishment should not be abolished because it is just retribution and has a deterrent effect. In this paper, I will argue that capital punishment should not be practiced.

In 1940, Lawrence Bittaker, an infamous serial killer from the 1970’s, was born to two unloving parents in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He was adopted but eventually left abandoned by his adoptive parents who could not put up with him anymore (Chojnaki, M. & Danz, E. p. 1). By the age of 17, Bittaker dropped out of high school, never to obtain his GED. From the ages of 21 to 26, Bittaker was diagnosed “borderline psychotic” and “basically paranoid” multiple times by different doctors (Chojnaki, M. & Danz, E. p. 1). Bittaker was in and out of jail before murdering five teenage girls in 1979 with a partner, Roy Norris (Chojnaki, M. & Danz, E. p. 2). In 1981, Bittaker was sentenced to death. As of today, he is 70 years old and is still on death row at San Quentin Prison in California (Chojnaki, M. & Danz, E. p. 3).

Capital punishment dates back to 18th century B.C. in the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon. Under this code twenty five crimes, excluding murder, were punishable by death. In historical data, the first death penalty was imposed to offender who was blamed for magic in 16th century BC Egypt (Regio, 1997). Unfortunately, death penalty is still practiced in some countries. For example, in Egypt recently on 24 March 2014, Minya Criminal Court imposed death penalty to 529 followers of Egyptian ex-president Mohamed Morsi for their participation in violence (Amnesty International, 2014). Nowadays, United States also practices capital punishment. According to the fact sheet of DPIC (2014) 20 criminals from different states were executed this year

Executions have occurred in many different forms for thousands of years. From Roman crucifixions to American lethal injections, capital punishments have one common goal: to provide retribution to a guilty party. However, in recent years, the death penalty has come under intense scrutiny. There are a great number of people who believe it should be abolished entirely and some who believe it should be used only in the most humane ways. In this paper, I will argue that the death penalty is justifiable in cases where a defendant is found guilty of murder.

According to our textbook” Capital Punishment “is punishment by execution of someone officially judged to have committed a serious, or capital, crime” (pg.311) This simply explains that death penalty will apply those ones who committed a major law breaking or crime.

The practice of the death penalty and capital punishment is a contemporary political issue that is widely debated throughout the United States. It is my opinion that capital punishment should either be discontinued or only reserved for the rarest of the rare case. In this essay, I will attempt to resolve the issue of whether the United States should continue or discontinue the practice of capital punishment by using the natural law theory set forth by Saint Thomas Aquinas and his greatest work, “Summa Theologiae”.

In society there many things that are debated among the people based on their beliefs, morals, and values. For this paper chose the death penalty because it is one of the highly debated topics in not only today’s society but also in the past. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, it used as a procedure of retaliation against those who commit violent crimes such as murder and other capital crimes. There are many forms of this punishment, for instance, the electric chair, lethal injections, and the firing squad. There are many feelings and arguments in relation to capital punishment. Some people believe that the death penalty is moral because they deserve it and it provides protection to the society. However, in this paper I will argue that capital punishment is totally immoral because it is not fair, is it unnecessary, and unethical.

Capital punishment is beneficial to the community. It provides the society with a sense of security. The death penalty contains a positive influence on the future. A heavily debated topic is, “Does capital punishment deter people more than a life sentence to prison?” An explanation on why will be covered later. An issues many people have with capital punishment, is when it is just or not just. This is a topic many stray away from, because it is difficult to decide. Finding the right consequence for an action is difficult. While this paper is for the use of capital punishment, it is clearly not needed for every crime, or even every murder. Overusing capital punishment, such as using it for every murder, will negatively impact the country, and not using it has the same effect.