Utilitarianism Death Penalty

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

Supporters of the capital punishment system penalty argue that when enforced, the death penalty saves lives. The fault placed into the opposing side for using the system with new trials to postpone execution. The problem with that argument is that in Florida, a total of twenty-five death row prisoners had been released due to erroneous convictions and were able to prove innocence, not a strong argument when lives are at risk.

Only the most dangerous criminals in the world are faced with society’s ultimate penalty, or at least that is the theory. Capital punishment, commonly referred to as the Death Penalty has been debated for many decades regarding if such a method is ethical. While there are large amounts of supporters for the death penalty as a form of retribution, the process is avoidable financially as taxing for all parties involved. The financial expenses may be better off saved for life imprisonment with an emphasis in restorative justice for victims. Overall, there is unreasonable inefficiency with the capital punishment to justify the taking of another person’s life.

The death penalty or Capital punishment is a controversial topic on its own. With the US being one of the states that allow capital punishment makes the topic even more personal. The utilitarian theory in the book is described as an action that would promote happiness or good consequences to "all concerned". With that simple definition, anyone can tell that someone who follows this theory would disagree completely with the idea of Capital punishment. In Chapter nine of the textbook the section "Utilitarianism, or Results, Theory" explains the difference between utilitarian and retributive theory. In the retributivist theory consequences are determined by the severity of the crime. For example someone murders a person for no reason, they would receive a very long or life sentence, opposed to a trespasser might receive six months or a fine depending on the severity. Utilitarianism is not always against

There are about 121 innocent people sitting on death row tonight. A study by the National Academy of Sciences reports that conservatively, 4.1 percent of defendants sentenced to death are indeed innocent. Capital punishment is abolished in many parts of the developed world, but is still carried out daily. In this day and age, its existence may seem questionable. After World War II, crime rates increased in the United States, peaking from the 1970s to the early 1990s. Violent crime nearly quadrupled between 1960 and its peak in 1991. Sure enough, thirty-two states, the federal civilian and military legal systems permit the death penalty. Its application is limited by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution to aggravated murders committed

The death penalty has been a controversial topic among society for ages. An issue often brought up when discussing the legality of capital punishment is wrongful convictions. Advocates of the death penalty say that, while wrongful convictions are an issue, those few cases do not outweigh the need for lawful execution of felons who are, without a doubt, guilty. On the other hand, the opponents argue that the death penalty is wrong from both a legal and moral standpoint, an ineffective form of punishment, and should, ultimately, be outlawed. With both advocates and challengers constantly debating on this topic, the death penalty and wrongful convictions continue to be hot buttons issues for Americans and people throughout the world.

     Capital punishment should be viewed as the stripping away of humanity from a person. The death penalty itself should be "executed" because of racial inequities, the concept of murder, the possibility of error, lack of deterrence, the cost, and an overwhelmed legal system. "The goal of capital punishment is revenge" (Introduction 1). Capital punishment is simply an outlet for the bloodlust of the American people (Introduction 1).

Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Why do some view the taking of a life morally correct? These questions are discussed and debated upon in every state and national legislature throughout the country. Advantages and disadvantages for the death penalty exist, and many members of the United States, and individual State governments, have differing opinions. Yet it seems that the stronger arguments, and evidence such as cost effectiveness, should lead the common citizen to the opposition of Capital Punishment.

Which question did I pick and why? Is putting a serial killer to death ethically sound when guilt has been established with absolute certainty? When it comes to answering this question, one must come to terms with what is their ideal of justice. For a long time the ideal, an eye for an eye as especially been the basis for all compensation of a crime. So when it comes to the logic, if serial killer is caught it would only make since for the death penalty to be enforced. After all, he did murder even if he felt guilty. Fair is fair, right? To break this down one must look on both sides of the argument, explain the Utilitarianism approach to the issue, as well as the view Kant would assume using both forms of his

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.

If the offender of the law is indeed worthy of being punished, how then would utilitarianism justify the degree to which the individual is punished? With the ultimate ends to punishment being the promotion of the greatest good, the proportions to which coercive force is used are determined via subordinate ends. These subordinate ends define the punishment as only positive as a response to the initial crime - the secondary act of evilness by punishment is what allows the injustice of the crime to be righted, inducing the prospect of a brighter future. Bentham goes on to suggest that these proportions must ensure that the offender loses the motivation to commit future mischief, must be proportionate to the extremeness of the act committed (by

In the past years, the death penalty has gotten out of hand. More states have been using the death sentence as one of the major punishments a delinquent can receive. It is not always an accurate thing because there have been major mistakes where the person is innocent. According to a recent study, 4% of the people put on the death penalty are not guilty (Brook). Since 1973, 144 prisoners on death row have been found to be innocent of crimes they have been convicted to (Brook).

Death is always a tragic experience. It obviously impacts the person who dies but it also impacts the people around the death. Usually, death doesn’t seem too bad if it’s only one person, but when a multitude of people die, it seems to be a bigger problem. If there is a big death count, there will be a lot of attention toward those particular deaths. If there is only one death, there will be very little attention toward that death.

According to capital punishment supporters, many of these reasons of the anti-death penalty movement are false and are now wrongly accepted as fact. The argument that the death penalty does not deter crime is debatable. By executing murderers you prevent them from murdering again. If these people no longer exist then they obviously cannot commit more crimes. In addition, criminals have admitted, in thousands of fully documented cases, that the death penalty was the specific threat which deterred them from committing murder (Pro-Death Penalty, 2014). The opponents of capital punishment claim that the death penalty has caused and can cause the execution of innocent people. However, according to the supporters, no evidence indicates that innocent people have been executed. Upon reviewing 23 years of capital sentences, a Wall Street Journal study indicated that they were unable to find a single case in which an innocent person was executed (Eddlem, 2002). Furthermore, advocates note that the

Philosophy branch which streamlines, protects and guides the concepts of being correct or incorrect is referred as Ethics. People learn this concept from their parents who got it from their parents and it is a chain. However philosophers claim that it is people’s belief which decide ethics along with human intuition. An individual at singular level conscientiously decides what is right and wrong and define a limit of pushing ethical behaviour and morality in being. Moral acceptability of any action can be judged from the points if action is understood by an individual well, the consequences of that action on public, fair treatment of action with all people respectfully and the way action is being performed, the motivation of people for it.