Does this mean that we should throw out the death penalty because people, who did not really deserve to die, were killed? No, we have changed the laws, and no one gets the death penalty unless they deserve to die. Capital punishment should stay around. Yes, there are some maldistributions on the way it is opposed on a person, but those maldistributions are imposed on guilty people. Capital punishment is feared by potential murderers because once it is ordered on them they are not coming back.
An easy way to answer these questions is to totally nullify capital punishment completely. One reason why the death penalty is so controversial is because many feel its cruel ways of punishment are unnecessary, even if the crime is murder, whether it be premeditated or unintentional. They believe there are other ways of condemnation besides execution. In the case of an unintentional death feelings are that the perpetrators should have the right to live, but have to face each day with the fact that they killed someone weighing on their conscience. On the other hand, such as with a voluntary murder, the ideas are somewhat similar.
The whole system of capital punishment is visibly flawed as its ability to execute the real criminals based upon DNA evidence continues to fail. Also, by killing criminals instead of using life imprisonment, the government continues to waste life and morally corrupt the public by settling random violent acts with systematic violent acts. Although some believe that murderers and cold-blooded killers should be immediately assigned the death penalty, death row should not be used as its process contains several flaws and it degrades the value of human life when alternative actions can be taken. From a historical standpoint, the use of capital punishment has survived through the ages, starting during the rule of Hammurabi in the Babylonian area. His Code dictated the earliest forms of the death penalty, which applied to a broad scope of punishments all under a single law, like, “an eye for an eye”.
Finally, the death penalty also denies the sanctity of life; by executing people, the action does not protect their life and, therefore, denies the sanctity of a human being’s right to be alive in the world. There is a lot of tension between whether or not capital punishment is a moral thing. Capital punishment is only a good punishment to a certain extent because it takes away a criminal capable of more awful things. Many people think that capital punishment should continue to be a form of punishment and should be used throughout the country and world. If people on death row could be charged without a doubt and be executed at the time they are proven guilty, many problems could be resolved such as exoneration.
Judges and others are reluctant - as they should be - to shorten the execution process for fear that hasty procedures will lead to the executions of more innocent people. The death penalty has been imposed most for murders committed during the course of another felony. Aggravating circumstances for murder are defined in the applicable death penalty statute. Bibliography: Works Consulted Flanders, Stephen A. Capital Punishment.
This argument by Kant shows that offenders will get what they deserve when they commit a wrongful act, but some criminals or murderers don’t really know what is going on, thus they are not deserving of punishment. Kant believes in universalizing the maxims which you act on, hence a murderer has willed that the same thing be done to him which makes the death penalty morally required according to Kant(Kant, pg 240). This shows that Kant is a strong supporter of the death penalty because without it how would we be able to rightfully punish murderers. Therefore all murderers ought to be sentenced to death row and if they are not proven inno... ... middle of paper ... ...idivist murders, in which murderers are given the opportunity to kill innocent people while they are sentenced. Therefore, no matter how you look at it the retributivists have two risks while Bedau only has one.
Capital Punishment In my opinion capital punishment is wrong. The death penalty is the center of much debate in society. This is due, in part, to the fact that people see only the act of killing a criminal, and not the social effects the death penalty has on society as a whole. Upon reading about the death penalty, it was found to be an unethical practice. It promotes a violent and inhumane society in which killing is considered okay.
When the government metes out vengeance disguised as justice, it becomes complicit with killers in devaluing human life and human dignity.””("Is the Death Penalty Immoral?," sec. 3) The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, and thus unconstitutional as well as immoral, and should be abolished.
The Death Penalty: Killing to Show Killing is Wrong Everyone knows that killing is wrong. So why should the government be able to kill people in order to show the population that killing is wrong? The answer is: they shouldn’t. Capital punishment is hypocritical and should no longer be given out as a sentence. The death penalty is immoral and should be abolished due to its high costs, its ability to give the criminals an “easy way out,” it leaves too much room for error, and most importantly, it goes against God’s way of a natural death.
Yet this law is clear to all Americans; capital punishment is contradicting it. The government says killing is only justified under certain circumstances, in which some convicted felons fall under. This is sending a message to the public that if it's under certain situations killing an individual is perfectly all right. In conclusion, capital punishment is overly expensive, encourages murder, and is simply wrong. This act of murder effects everyone for the worse.