Capital Punishment Although, many may like to think otherwise, the line between good and evil is one that is incalculably thin, and one which is walked on every day. Thus, it is very simple for someone once deemed as a “good” person, to become evil. The worst part–often people are unaware that they have even crossed that line. If you are someone who believes and has voted for the death penalty, you no longer tread through the thin line, but rather stand bold faced in the side of evil. The death penalty is man’s way of playing God, statistically helps no one, and dehumanizes man. For countless years, authors have been writing of the dangers of “playing god,” take the well-known novel, Frankenstein for example. In this novel, a scientist creates ‘the Adam of his labors’ and ultimately goes mad, because he cannot control what he has done. Likewise, if man continues to play the role of God in deciding who lives and dies, the cost will become so vast we will no longer have control of the world in which we’ve created where sentencing people to their deaths is acceptable. Above all, God himself says “thou shall not kill,” thus, if one is to play the role of God, should …show more content…
It is not hard to believe that when posed the question: have you ever taken away an innocent life? One would like to answer with a negative response, however, statistics show that at least 4 percent of all people who have received the death penalty are innocent. Therefore, if you are in support of the death penalty, and feel that you are doing what is for the better good of society, it is imperative to make note: that though the justice system is good, it is not perfect, and often make mistakes. However, those mistakes should not cause a heart to stop beating, a child to no longer see their parent, or an innocent man to be put to death for something someone else has
Many innocent lives are taken due to the death penalty which are often the direct result of bias and discrimination. Needless to say, the death penalty is a poor and definitive response that cannot be undone. Combating this matter requires government intervention, and entails prohibiting the death
Edward Koch make it clear that he believes that capital punishment can prevent homicides: “Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of these murderers, they might well have stayed their hands” (484). Koch tries to convince his reader that a strict punishment like the death penalty will definitely force people to think twice before they murder another human being. Koch uses evidence like the murder rate and cases where criminals committed multiple murders to support his defense for capital punishment, and uses the statistics to show how necessary capital punishment is necessary in the United States (485-86). This essay is directed at U.S. citizens how can be persuaded to support or have not yet formed an opinion on capital punishment, so the death penalty can gain supporters and be fully incorporated into the law. He also states that by making murderers pay with their lives, capital punishment makes the value of human life at a higher level (487).
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
The Death Penalty: Is it Right? In 1972, the Supreme Court was evaluating a criminal case, Furman v. Georgia. In this case the defendant, William Henry Furman, was burglarizing a house when he was discovered by someone. In attempt to flee, he tripped and accidently set off the gun, killing the person that discovered him.
Back in 1796 there were more than 10 innocent people killed and today about 4.1 percent of the people executed are innocent, and that’s more than enough. I think it is un fair to families, friends and the defendant to have their life taken if they are not guilty, If the law officials cannot prove whether or not the defendant is guilty then the death penalty should be abolished. Now on the other side, executing someone who is actually guilty; I do not support this either. I strongly believe that someone who commits a capital crime and has received the death penalty deserves to suffer for the rest of their life. Democratic leaders will be the ones to change the death penalty.
Some see the death penalty as the only means to extract justice for victims. Others see it as a morally reprehensible act where a second wrong is committed in order to make something right. With recent issues surrounding the death penalty in which execution hasn 't gone as planned sparking a nationwide debate, this is my outlook on why I 'm for the death penalty not only being abolished in the state of Texas but in addition to the entirety of the US..
In recent years, anti-death penalty propagandists have succeeded in stoking the fear that capital punishment is being carelessly meted out. Ironically, Of the 875 prisoners executed in the United States in modern times, not one has been retroactively proved innocent. The benefits of a legal system in which judges and juries have the option of sentencing the cruelest or coldest murderers to death far outweigh the potential risk of executing an innocent person. First and foremost, the death penalty makes it possible for justice to be done to those who commit the worst of all crimes. The execution of a murderer sends a powerful moral message: that the innocent life he took was so precious, and the crime he committed so horrific, that he forfeits
Society puts labels on what is normal and what is not, what emotions you should feel, and which you shouldn't. The merriam-webster's dictionary defines the word “human” as the “of, relating to, or characteristic of humans”. In the novel “Frankenstein” by Gris Grimly, the two main characters, Victor Frankenstein and his Creation both face hardships. In the novel, Victor decides to construct a being to bring back to life, which later then becomes the Creature. At the end of the novel, a question is brought to the minds of the readers: who is more human, the Creature or Victor?
Imagine this: you’re created from the flesh and bones of various humans before you, abandoned by your creator, and left to fend for yourself with no knowledge regarding human interaction. No need to imagine, as Victor Frankenstein single-handedly created this abnormal reality. So, who is considered the monster? In “Frankenstein,” Victor presents himself as the real monster, as he refuses to accept responsibility for his loved ones’ deaths, fosters the creature’s hatred toward mankind, and neglects his creation.
In Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, it scrutinizes the punishments when a man creates life, and plays the role of God. Victor Frankenstein, is at fault for the creature’s actions. Victor was looking for some honor and triumph, but when he accomplished his experiment, not only did it bring terror to Victor, but to the whole world. The monster never learned right from wrong and was never raised correctly, his first moment of life, all he experienced was the fear in Victor's emotion, and was abandoned right from the start. Victor selfishly isolated himself from society and ran away from his responsibilities which caused destruction to the people Victor cared for and loved deeply.
If the cold-blooded killing of thousands does not lower premeditated murder, there is really no point (because let 's face it, the saying “eye for an eye” is childish and socially unacceptable). This same conclusion was agreed upon in a recent poll by almost 90% of the world’s criminological societies (Facts About the Death Penalty). However in all honesty, the argument against the death penalty doesn’t just stop at its redundancy, but also its
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.
If you were to see a creature with an eight foot stature, bones sticking out of their chest, bolts and stitches would you think they’re human? Within Gris Grimly’s graphic novel Frankenstein inspired by the 1818 gothic novel The Modern Prometheus authored by Mary Shelley. The reader follows Victor Frankenstein's journey as he grows old seeking revenge on his own creation. Victor is fascinated by the thought of bringing life to an inanimate body and spends years trying to complete his pursuit, once done he regrets everything, he abandons it and the creature seeks revenge. The creature may have a similar body to a human, but are humans made of severed limbs from many of the deceased and metal?
The Death Penalty, loss of life due to previous crimes and actions, is believed by some to be extremely costly, inhumane, and cruel unlike some others whom believe it is just, right, and provides closure. The Death Penalty is not a quick and easy process. Most who get sentenced to deaths row wait years for their ultimate punishment of death. Some believe that it is not right to punish and kill a human for actions they have done because, they believe that the inmate should have another chance. Then others believe that it is right to punish someone for their actions especially if their actions involve killing another or multiple humans.
This may not be an overwhelming amount, but we don‘t really know how many innocent lives have really been taken. Now with that being said even if the amount of innocent lives taken is very small that‘s still an awful thing to happen. Is the death pentaly worth the risk of any innocent lives? Or it might be very unlikely that it‘ll happen because according to this same article death penalty cases are taken with extreme caution, and if there is any doubt most of the time the defendent will be senteced to life imprisonment or exonerated „Advocates for a defendant are much more likely to pursue any plausible postconviction claim of innocence if the defendant is under sentence of death. “ "NCIB PMC Barbara O 'Brian, Chen Hu, Edward H.Kennedy, Samuel R. Gross,“ Another concern to think about is, is there really any humane way to perform the death penalty?