...Is The Death Penalty Justified? Narisha T. Carr-Smalls PHI200: Mind and Machine Instructor: Elliott Crozat July 4, 2012 Is The Death Penalty Justified? How would we define Capital punishment? It is the death penalty. “Capital punishment is the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime. The word ‘capital’ comes from the Latin word ‘capitalis,’ which means ‘regarding the head.’ At one point and time capital crimes where punished by severing the head. Crimes that can result in the death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offenses. Capital punishment has been used in societies throughout history as a way to punish crime and suppress political dissent. In most places that practice capital punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as punishment for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy (the formal renunciation of the State religion). In many retentions countries (Countries that use the death penalty), drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are also punished by the death penalty (Debatepedia, 2011).” Capital punishment was used throughout history and still used today for a variety of offenses. The death penalty was even utilized biblically for crimes such as murder, kidnapping, and even witchcraft...
Words: 2500 - Pages: 10
...The Death Penalty The death penalty has been the cause of much debate for hundreds of years. Taking the life of a person for committing terrible crimes, specifically murder, puts doubt into the minds of many. Some may ask: Why would we kill people to show that killing is wrong? Well, there are a few specific reasons that can clearly show why the death penalty is a necessary punishment. Overall, capital punishment is morally justified, protects society from dangerous people, and is an effective deterrent to crime. Some would argue that the death penalty is not morally justified. I do not believe that this is a strong argument in many cases. Morality is defined as the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Normally, people are praised for good behavior, and punished for bad behavior. Punishments, specifically by the law, can be anything from a fine, to time in prison, and even death in some cases. Opponents of capital punishment say that it is completely wrong to kill someone as a punishment for murder. If it is for the protection of innocent lives though, then why is there such opposition against it? Casey Carmical, a professional translator who writes about current social and political issues, said, “Executing murderers, however, prevents them from committing their crime again, and thus protects innocent victims. The good, therefore, outweighs the bad, and the executioner is morally justified in taking the murderers life.” This statement is very true...
Words: 1089 - Pages: 5
...Retribution: Should the death penalty be used for retribution? Retribution in the criminal justice system refers to the idea that offenders should be punished for committing crimes when they freely violate existing social rules. Retribution would not support punishing someone who does no exercise free will or was forced to commit a crime, i.e., a gunman compiles a victim to steal money. One example of retribution involves the notion of an eye, which demonstrates that punishment of services crimes is justified when deserved. The team focused on capital punishment in India and whether retribution is utilized in the justice system. Although capital punishment is legal in India, it is rarely carried out. Supporters of the death penalty have argued that the death penalty is morally justified when it is applied in murder especially when there is aggravation, such as multiple homicides, child murder, torture murder and mass killing such as terrorism. The Supreme Court of India ruled in 1983 that the death penalty should be imposed only in “the rarest of rare cases”. The judgment then goes on to say that the “rarest of the rare” must be measured not only in qualitative but also in quantitative term. Basically if the crime fits the punishment than retribution should be utilized and capital punishment would be adhered to. Although it has been stated that capital punishment has been rarely used, history in India reports that between 1975 and 1991, 40 people...
Words: 626 - Pages: 3
...The Death Penalty and its Ethical Permissibility Palestine Fox Kaplan University Abstract The death penalty has been used for centuries to punish criminals for heinous crimes, in spite of the fact that arguments concerning the death penalty, its concepts of retribution, deterrence and just punishments have been disagreed upon. The question at hand is whether or not the death penalty is permissible and if so under what circumstances, which has long been a heated debate for centuries. The ethical issues surrounding the death penalty include the morality of this form of punishment and whether or not it is morally right to deprive a human being of life. This paper will discuss the background of the death penalty, its permissibility under the law and how the death penalty would be viewed by the ethical philosophies and various religions. The Death Penalty and its Permissibility Introduction of the Death Penalty The death penalty or capital punishment is the practice of executing someone as a form of punishment for a heinous or specific crime following a proper legal trial. The death penalty is usually a punishment sentenced for serious types of murders, in some countries treason, types of fraud, adultery and rape, which are capital crimes (Capital Punishment, 2013). The death penalty was introduced as early as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, who codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. In the Seventh Century B.C. Athens...
Words: 4062 - Pages: 17
...Death Penalty Argument 1) In this letter, the author expresses their support of the use of the death penalty, making the claim that it is morally justified and serves as a deterrent. 2) In support of his argument, the author provides several pieces of evidence and arguments to support his claim. To support his claim, he initially argues that the death penalty serves as a deterrent and is morally justifiable. He continues his argument on morality by stating his belief that when one has raped and murdered a child, the person deserves to die and no longer has the right to life. In this letter, the author justifies the moral use of the death penalty with a quote from President Obama, insinuating that there are such crimes so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of outrage and meting out the ultimate punishment. Following that, the...
Words: 1385 - Pages: 6
...There, Simmons and Benjamin tied her feet and hands together with electrical wire, wrapped her whole face in duct tape and threw her from the bridge alive, drowning her in the waters below. Simmons later bragged about the killing, telling friends he had killed a woman because the bitch saw his face. The State sought the death penalty. As aggravating factors, the State submitted that the murder was committed for the purpose of receiving money, for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing lawful arrest of the defendant, and involved depravity of mind and was outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman. A primary purpose of the juvenile justice system is to hold juvenile offenders accountable for delinquent acts to prevent future involvement in law-violating behavior. If you murder someone in cold blood by the laws of common sense you deserve equal severity in your punishment for the crime you committed. Society should demand accountability in how the justice scale tip. If the only sentencing for capital murder was death, the murder rates would drastically...
Words: 655 - Pages: 3
...Death Penalty in the U.S.A. Maryland has had the death penalty since 1638, however, the state has neither sentenced anyone to death of executed a prisoner since 2005. "Evidence shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent, it cannot be administered without racial bias and it costs three times as much as life in prison without parole," Governor O'Malley said in a statement. "What's more, there is no way to reverse a mistake if an innocent person is put to death." (Sutton, 2013) The death penalty first clearly existed as a legal punishment at the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted in 1791. A death penalty is the sentence of execution prescribed by any state legislature for the most heinous of crimes. This punishment ends the life of the convicted offender. Death penalty served as the strongest punishment to the criminals who committed to murder and some other capital crimes, it functioned as a deterrent, something that will stop or lessen crime. It aimed at ensuring justice, preventing crime as a deterrent and controlling crime as to remove possible future threats to the public. “The punishment of murderers has been earned by the pain and suffering they have imposed on their victims.” —Dudley Sharp,vice president of Justice for All. (Golston, 2009) The justification for death penalty is one of the earliest philosophies of justice, “If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death. . . . If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done...
Words: 828 - Pages: 4
...In the book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, it’s about the murder of six people that took place in the small town of Holcomb, Kansas. The Clutter family was one of the four members that were savagely murdered from a shotgun held a few inches from their faces. The two murderers were captured, put in trial, and then executed by the end of the book. According to Thomas Brooks, punishment is a response to a crime whereas an individual is breaking the law and did it on purpose. Thomas Brooks’s explanation of punishment demonstrates the justice being done upon the death of the Clutter family through retributivism, Expressivism, and capital punishment. Thomas Brooks said, “Retributivists claim that criminals deserve punishment in proportion to...
Words: 613 - Pages: 3
...No Justification for Death Penalty Death penalty or the capital punishment is a severe punishment given by the government to a criminal for offending crimes that are categorized under the capital crimes like murder. When the criminals are convicted of capital crimes and are sentenced for death penalty, the government legally takes life of the criminal by hanging them to death, lethal injection or by electrocute. Death penalty used to be performed all over the world, but many countries have outlawed it with regards to its violation of human rights and religious causes. In United States, most of the states have the authority to give death penalty to criminals. Death penalty is a very serious issue that has caused a big controversy between its supporters and opposers. People who support death penalty argues that it is the right kind of punishment for the criminals, provides justice to the victims and the families as well help deter the crime rates. But I really don’t think death penalty has any justification because there is a maximum chance for innocent people being convicted, it is also a violation of human rights as well as a religious sin to take life of people, and the crimes have not lowered due to death penalty, rather it takes a lot of tax payer’s money to execute a criminal. I rather think that such criminals should be given life imprisonment without parole. The foremost reason for abolishing the death penalty is the wrongful conviction. There are lots of cases where...
Words: 1394 - Pages: 6
...Is the state justified in executing people convicted of crimes? The state should not have the right to execute people convicted of crimes. I see capital punishment as an immoral practice because capital punishment has failed to prove any benefits. Capital punishment is not cost effective and does not have a deterrence effect. I believe that the influence of media has caused the widespread support for the capital punishment. The public needs to be aware of the reasons why capital punishment cannot be justified. There is a common belief in our society that it is costly to keep a person in prison on a life-sentence. This belief is true—imprisoning a person requires about $20,000 annually. However, studies showed that the cost of capital punishment significantly exceeds the cost of life-long prison terms. When capital punishment is considered, it is mandatory for the case to be heard in the United States Supreme Court. The case goes through multiple appeals and retrials in order to provide “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” By one study, each execution cost $2.16 million more than life imprisonment. Also, the cost of detaining a person on a death-row is higher than detaining those who are serving their terms. This cost mounts to a significant amount considering the fact that an average person on a death row spends close to 8 years in prison. Therefore, it would be wrong to justify capital punishment because of the cost. Deterrence theory is envisioned as people weighing...
Words: 552 - Pages: 3
...The debate on whether the death penalty is acceptable will never be resolved. That is unless the government decides to abolish it. I do not nor will I ever agree with the death penalty. It does not matter what the person has done. Nobody has the right to take anyone’s life. Although these people have done horrible crimes the death penalty can never be justified. The death penalty is inflicted on those who have committed capital crimes. Those crimes being espionage, treason, murder, and aircraft hijacking resulting in death. Furthermore, kidnapping, genocide, and drug drive by’s all resulting in murder. The death penalty is legal in 31 U.S. states. While it is only illegal in 19 of the 50 states. Making over half of the United States murders. Explicitly, the ways of execution on the death penalty are the most some of the most lethal. There are five ways used in the U.S. , lethal injection, electrocution, gas chamber, firing squad, and hanging. All five of these processes are disgusting to me. When considering the death penalty it is important to look at it from all...
Words: 1176 - Pages: 5
...2009), compares the deterrence capability of the death penalty to that of long term imprisonment. The article begins by detailing the context of the study through highlighting the declining support for the deterrence hypothesis, due in large part to flawed empirical research. Radelet and Lacock offer a brief history of studies on...
Words: 1264 - Pages: 6
...How Can This Be Justified? Submitted by: Charlotte Tilley Submitted for: Ms Moser Submitted on: October 28th EWC 4UI-01 How Can This Be Justified? When Lesley Parrott states “Take a life in order to show people that it is wrong to take one,” she summarizes the thoughts of many who disagree with the death penalty by focusing on its cons. In her essay within the book The Writer Within: Dialogue and Discovery, Lesley Parrot discusses many points that convince readers to be against the death penalty. As the essay begins, one of the many points she discusses is the suffering of the victims’ families Not only does the family of the victim suffer, so does the family of the potentially innocent human who has been condemned to death row for even long periods of time, agonizingly waiting for their day to come. This is the case of Mathew Poncelet in the film Dead Man Walking. Although Mathew’s actions are in fact unforgivable, he deserved to be given a fair chance to live their lives regardless of their crimes. Attorneys are very difficult to afford and due to the fact that he was poverty stricken, Mathew was unable to afford one during his court hearing. This is the case for many and just like those before him who were treated unjustly, he has an under qualified, under equipped and unsatisfactory attorney appointed to him. Without the chance to properly defend himself, he was sentenced to the death penalty without even a second thought. Despite the fact that Mathew Poncelet...
Words: 969 - Pages: 4
... The Death Penalty: Is It a Crime Deterrent? The death penalty is morally permissible punishment for those who kill. Intentionally taking the life of an innocent victim is so malicious that in short supply extenuating circumstances, the murderer surrenders his or her own right to live and society is justified in sentencing him to die. Every year more people are convicted and sentenced to death row. Many are executed. Once a jury has convicted a criminal of an offense they go to the second part of the trial, the punishment phase. If the jury recommends the death penalty and the judge concurs then the criminal will face a form of execution, lethal injection is the most common form used today. There was a period from 1972 to 1976 that capital punishment was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Honeyman & Ogloff, 1996). Their reason for this decision was that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. The decision was reversed when new methods of execution were introduced (Honeyman & Ogloff, 1996). The Gallup pole lists public opinion of the life without parole as compared to the death penalty 48% versus 47% (Stop killing, 2007). Capital punishment is a difficult issue and there are as many different opinions as there are people. There are many murders each year. Does the death penalty create a deterrent for these criminals? There is a need for the death penalty. There are always two...
Words: 1499 - Pages: 6
...ETHICS December 05, 2012 Capital punishment involves the deliberate killing of a supposed or actual offender for an offense. Is the death penalty morally justified? This is one of the most debated topics in todays Society and it seems that everyone have an opinion on this topic. The real issues at the heart of this matter are how do we answer the question of moral justification? Kant and Stuart Mill, from a philosophical point of view, place their prospective on this issue. Both the theories of Mills and that of Kant permit the death penalty to be a morally permissible punishment. They do this, however, according to very different reasoning. Kant believes that juridical punishment can never be administered merely as a means for promoting an other good but must, in all cases, be imposed only because the individual on whom it is inflicted has committed a crime. Kant was long considered to be an idealist of the retributivist theory of punishment. While he does claim that the only proper justification of punishment is guilt for a crime, he does not limit the usefulness of punishment to retributivist matters. Punishment can have, as its justification, only the guilt of the criminal. Criminals must pay for their crimes, otherwise an injustice has occurred. Retributivist theory holds not only that criminal guilt is required for punishment, but that the appropriate type and amount of punishment is also determined by the crime itself....
Words: 850 - Pages: 4
