Why People Shouldn 't Be Killed

You don’t think that something is ever going to happen to you or your loved ones, but what if it did and someone you were closed to lost their life? The feeling of guilt from not being able to do anything because he/she is already gone weighing down on you. Some people just make bad decisions and some just happen to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time, but should people in life or death situations be held responsible for the cost of their actions?

Individuals in life or death situations should not be held accountable for their action. They are obviously going to want to be alive and happy, and not die or live in misery, so victims would most likely do whatever it takes to survive. Whoever made the decisions weren’t fully thinking it through because we all develop mentally at a different age for children and adults. Individuals who are in life or death situations don’t put themselves in that positions purposely to where they know they can die. In situations like these, everyone feels stress to the point where they have no other option until it is too late when they make their final choice like what happened in “The Seventh Man”

There is a time where killing is a justified action. Times like this our self-defense, war, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Another great example is in the book, by John Steinbeck, Of Mice and Men. George had to kill Lennie because Lennie’s punishment could have been worse, Lennie is not safe to be around, and George realized Lennie would never get better and the dream would never come true.

On one end of the argument is the belief that all human lives are of equal merit, because they are humans it gives them equal merit. Therefore no human should ever take the life of another, even if that individual has taken other lives. This argument is mostly favored by people of religious faith, but there are some sensible individuals who also adhere to this as an ethical position. At the other end of the spectrum is an argument in favor of the death penalty because of its ability to get rid of a problematic human so that they will be able to do no more harm. This is a very utilitarianism-like perspective of the death penalty. To examine this perplexing ethical dilemma one must first figure out their stance on what death is, like Socrates would.

Imagine that you are arrested and going to be tried for a crime that you did, or did not, commit. What if you cannot afford the cost of a lawyer? Will you be able to handle the physical and mental toll that all of the appeals have on a person? The death penalty, or capital punishment, is one of the most debated topics in America. It has been used for centuries, but many claim it to be barbaric, and want the practice to end all together. The death penalty should only be used in cases where there is absolute evidence that the criminal is guilty, because life in prison can be an alternative, there are many flaws in the justice system, and it can be a cruel and unusual punishment.

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

The death penalty is a punishment given to people who commit heinous crimes. Since 1976, there have been over 1,390 executions. But does that make the death penalty, necessarily, a correct and justifiable form of punishment? “The death penalty is our harshest punishment,” states Ernest van den Haag, author of “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense.” Van den Haag, in his article, argues how the death penalty is effective and should be used. However, Jack Greenberg, James P. Gray, and Jeffery Reiman, all concur that the death penalty should not be used as a punishment for criminals. Jack Greenberg, author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment,” argues how the death penalty is an

The system works that the criminal does the crime, the criminal gets caught, tried and convicted, and it is understood that the punishment will be severe. The person the criminal has killed no longer has a part to play in this. Unfortunately the murderer has deprived their family and friends of a loved one. Their grief begins with the murder. “It may not end with the murderer’s execution, but the execution does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal- a feeling which often fails to arise while the murder still lives on” (The Facts). the system in place currently is there for the purpose of granting justice, cannot do so for the surviving victims, unless the murderer himself is put to death (The Facts).

Are there ever good enough reasons to kill a person? Killing a person is a major debate all around the world. No one should ever be killed no matter what the reasons are. Killing a person should not occur because of anger. Getting jealous over something or someone should not lead them to hurt them. Frustration often makes people do things that they should not, but that should not happen.

[As their] murder [can be] thoughtful, deliberate and cunning in it planning and execution” (Weir 13) as this is cruel and an unusual punishment for the victims. We need to keep in mind that the victim could be a daughter, cousin, sister, mother, a loved one that’s why they need justice. Who know how much pain they were going through as they were getting attacked by a victim they thought was an average person like them. The worries about if they might live or not to see their loved one they thought would be able to see forever. This is why criminals need to take responsibility for their actions they

Is life and death such a good thing, is killing someone the right thing to do. People’s life’s are meaningless and should die without any thought what so ever.

There’s been times in history where people don’t really get punished for their horrific actions. However, the judge of the court case decides that their not guilty enough for the death penalty. In the year 2002, there was two parents and an uncle who

Therefore, according to Marquis, a new strategy should be adopted to develop the argument o abortion. In this case, the author starts by illustrating why killing an ordinary adult is morally wrong, and tries to apply same reasons to the case of abortion. Therefore, if similar reasons can be applied to the context of abortion, then decision of it being immoral will be made. The wrong aspect in killing relates to depriving the victim life which is inherently valuable. In this case, killing deprives of the victim the very valuable things that he or she could have achieved in future if life was not terminated prematurely (Vaughn, 2012). Among these valuables are aesthetic experiences, relationships, accomplished projects, achievements and goals. Therefore, killing is regarded as wrong because it denies the victim the value of the future. Marquis, therefore, notes that there are various reasons to explain why killing is wrong. Firstly, it accounts for the idea that murder is the worst crime because of the extent of its deprivation. It also matches with the attitude that the terminally ill develop concerning the future death. In addition, the act of killing has no special importance that supports moral reasons to justify abortion. Furthermore, the author reveals that this idea is plausible in the verdict of various ethical activities. For instance, it is used to explain why euthanasia victims are a time allowed to be killed as well as a reason behind infanticide.

Capital Punishment was adopted by America when the state of Virginia carried out the colonies’ first execution in 1608 (“History of the Death Penalty”). Since then, usage of the death penalty has been instituted by 36 states, making execution the ultimate form of punishment. Although in theory the death penalty seems like a viable method of punishment, in practice, it has serious flaws that damage the integrity of the state. Capital Punishment has been falsely idolized as a deterrent, applied unfairly for generations, used as a vehicle for revenge, and made people blind to the fact that life in prison without parole is an equally acceptable form of punishment. The death penalty is an

By killing this person doesn’t make them learn from their mistakes. They weren’t given the chance to learn from their mistake or suffer the consequences. No one deserves to die either people were born with the right to live just because something that they did was wrong they shouldn’t be killed. I believe that life in prison is way much worst rather than killing them instantly. By knowing that you are going to be in prison for life is going to drive those people nuts. By killing them you are making it easier for them, make them suffer the consequences.