The use of capital is acceptable only in the most severe cases, but should still have a place within our society nonetheless. This in comparison to the opinion stated by my group in class, that capital punishment should be entirely abolished due to the mistakes that can be made. This referring to the incidental killing of an innocent person wrongly convicted. Members of my group used a utilitarianist point of view to argue their cases, which contained flaws. This paper will approach the topic of capital punishment looking at the society as a whole. Then looking at the views of Kant and …… to determine the appropriateness of the death penalty in society.
Although mistakes can be made, capital punishment is still a needed (be it sparingly)
…show more content…
While in class may groups discussed abolishing the death penalty entirely due to the recurring mistakes that are made during convention process. These groups classified the value being put in jeopardy as an individual's right to life, which goes against a utilitarianist view. A common argument relied on a utilitarianist view, with the thought that a life in prison instead of the death penalty would increase the overall happiness of society. I tend to disagree with the totality of this argument. Instead of doing away with this punishment altogether, society needs to practice it less frequently and give more resources to the judicial system. My justification for this argument is that in keeping the death penalty minimally intact, society will function better due to its trust in the government. This is clearly seen by Fyodor Dostoevsky on Justice and Forgiveness. In the story Ivan touches on the subject of justice in pertaining to a murdered child's case. At one point Ivan, utterly distraught exclaims “I must have justice, or I will destroy myself. And not justice in some remote infinite time and space, but here on earth, and that I could see myself.”(Dostoevsky) A word that is heavily relied on within Dostoevsky’s piece is justice, something
He suggests that other social policies also lead to the death of innocent individuals, but they are not banned. The author presents deductive arguments to support his position, including the idea that murderers who are not executed have the potential to harm more innocent people. He believes that opponents of capital punishment should acknowledge their responsibility for innocent lives lost due to murderers who were not executed. Prager concludes that capital punishment is necessary to protect innocent lives. Opponents should confront their responsibility for every innocent already murdered and yet to be murdered by murderers who should have been
This paper will serve to show that capital punishment is not, in fact, ethically permissible. I will argue this by explaining the government’s duty to its people, and how capital punishment is indeed a violation of these prima facie duties. 1. The government has a duty to protect its people from harm (including murder, abuse of power, etc.). 2.
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, and the debate about its abolition is the largest point of the essay written by Steve Earle, titled "A Death in Texas”. This form of punishment should be abolished for 3 reasons; First, It does not seem to have a direct effect on deterring murder rates, It has negative effects on society, and is inconsistent with American ideals. To begin, the death penalty is unnecessary since it is ineffective at deterring rates of murder. In fact, 88% of the country's top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. In opposition, supporters may argue that it may indeed help to deter murder rates as they have
The morality of the death penalty is a huge debate in philosophy, and even the political system. This serious topic is controversial and has two main sides; there are abolitionists, which are “those who want to do away with capital punishment,” and there are also retentionists, that want to “retain the death penalty as a part of a system of legal punishment” (Vaughn 348). Both retentionists and abolitionists have strong believes on whether or not capital punishment is just. In the book, Contemporary Moral Arguments by Lewis Vaughn, there are readings by Kant, Cassell, and Stevenson that further describe the differences and sides to the death penalty. In addition, many ethical theories such as deontological and consequential ethics can side
The capital punishment is well supported in this article. It clearly shows how ethos, pathos and logos support the why the capital punishment should be kept and not taken away. The reader is heavily given enough information to go towards the side of keeping the capital punishment. While there is little information why the punishment shouldn’t be used its not supported as well.
While there are far more subjects to discuss regarding to this issue, I feel it necessary to state that I believe the death penalty should exist in a perfect society. I believe that certain crimes and certain situations warrant the punishment of death. However, the our society is not perfect. The justice system has failed to fairly use this punishment in far too many instances, and concludes that they cannot justly wield this
Russ Shafer-Landau provides us with two separate arguments about the death penalty in his academic book The Ethical Life, fundamental readings in ethics and moral problems. In the first argument, Justifying Legal Punishment, Igor Primoratz gives us substantive reasoning that opts favorably toward the necessity of the death penalty. Contrasting Primoratz, Stephen Nathanson, through An Eye for an Eye, provides us with an argument that hopes to show us that capital punishment, like murder, is also immoral and therefore, unjust. By the end of this essay, I intend to show that while capital punishment may not be the easy choice for a consequence and punishment to murder, it is, however, the necessary one.
Have you ever wonder a few decades ago how people lives were punished for being a part of a crime? Many of these individuals are rather influenced by the crimes or were affected by their devastated childhood. As you can see a writer name Truman Capote have demonstrated us how an investigation has reflected us on law, discipline, and the important factors of using capital punishment. Capital punishment is defined as the death penalty, in which you penalized people who has done wrong in the world or violated an act/law. If has been used today and in ancient times for various accusation or offenses.
The topic of capital punishment presents a test of values. The arguments in support of and opposition to the death penalty are complex. In the end, this is a question of an individual’s values and morals. The topic requires careful thought to reach a reasoned position. Both sides of the argument are defensible.
In conclusion the idea that the death penalty should be abolished can be supported by many reasons that include extensive evidence. With the death penalty still established we are putting innocent people's lives at risk, spending millions, and continue with racial segregation. The idea that someone's opinion in court can decide the fate of another person is
Annotated Bibliography Draft Student name : Haider Zafaryab Student number: 2360526 Thesis Statement : Capital Punishment is a very controversial topic around the globe. I believe that it does more harm than good and breeds violence in society. Source 1: Radelet, M. L., & Akers, R. L. (1996).
The idea of cruelty is taken up again with the sentencing of the criminals to the death penalty. The author criticizes the death penalty system in the USA and brings
Summary of Major Ideas In this article “Death and Justice,” Edward Koch adequately defends the view of capital punishment on many fronts. He doesn’t, however, approach the topic in an offensive way. He defends the issue primarily by defending opposing vies by counteracting common arguments made against the subject. He shows that any argument someone could make against the matter he could undermine it through examples, statistics, and even the Bible.
Each year in many countries around the world people are murdered in the name of “justice”. But can justice really include a sanitised form of revenge? Many people are for the death penalty regardless of what it actually is. A major way that the death penalty is flawed is shown in the amount of innocent people who are sentenced to death.
Why death penalty must end ‘’An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,’’ said Mahatma Gandhi. The execution of someone who has possibly done a crime is an inhuman act. Death penalty is hypocritical and flawed. If killing is wrong, why do we kill when a criminal has done the crime of killing someone? In this essay, I will write why death penalty should end by writing about the violation of human rights, execution of innocent people, the fact that it does not deter crime and money.