ipl-logo

'Capital Punishment Is Morally Justified'

298 Words2 Pages

The findings showed that society constructs a criminal justice system that scares future criminals off by making an example of those who commit it.” What this means is that capital punishment will marginalize murders. It pushes them to the edge of society so that they cannot commit crime again. Accordingly, it will eradicate and terminate the future threats of dangerous offenders who are inclined to bring to community while behind bar or after parole (Shepherd).
A second disputation of those who advocate capital punishment is that it is “just and moral”. One of those who believe this is Casey Carmical, who is professional translator and blog writer of website called “Casey 's Critical Thinking” pertaining to current social and political issues. In article “Capital Punishment Is Morally Justified”, Carmical confirmed that “the purpose of the …show more content…

He also ascertained that murder is clarified as “the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one

Show More
Related
1161 Words | 5 Pages

In writing the essay entitled "More Innocents Die When We Don't Have Capital Punishment," Dennis Prager examines the arguments of those against capital punishment. He makes a deductive argument that supports his conclusion in favor of capital punishment, taking the stance that murderers should undergo execution as capital punishment imposes a lessened threat to innocent lives than if it was not an option. Furthermore, Prager makes several claims throughout his writing regarding those opposing capital punishment, their arguments, and the effects on the lives of innocent people. Additionally, through this essay, he commits a few logical fallacies such as false dilemma, strawman, slippery slope, and appealing to the person. Prager's essay presents

Read More
804 Words | 4 Pages

Attorneys from both sides of the capital punishment debate were interviewed with one stating “If you are going to kill somebody in the country, don’t be poor.” *6 This opinion was promptly opposed by an Assistant District Attorney who went on to describe the crimes that those on death row had committed. The more people that were interviewed and surveyed the more they began to realize that the American death penalty was filled with

Read More
162 Words | 1 Pages

Even if murderers committed a crime, they are still human beings and they are innocent if proven guilty, so

Read More
588 Words | 3 Pages

Joshua Marquis is neither a scholar, a jurist, or a crusader for the wrongly accused. Instead he has spent most of his time as a prosecutor. His essay is written from a personal point of view where he supports the death penalty; however, his essay is unlike the average supporter. Joshua Marquis believes capital punishment should be decided based on the following: each case on its own, within its own context, using the specific facts of the case, considering the community where the crime occurred and the background of the defendants. With that being said, Marquis believes that for certain cases the death penalty is appropriate.

Read More
744 Words | 3 Pages

Capital punishment has long been a heavily debated issue. In his article, “The Rescue Defence of Capital Punishment,” author Steve Aspenson make a moral argument in favor of capital punishment on the grounds that that is the only way to bring about justice and “rescue” murder victims. Aspenson argues as follows: 1. We have a general, prima facie duty to rescue victims from increasing harm. 2.

Read More
474 Words | 2 Pages

Lastly, Muhlhausen adopted a serious and a factual tone in order to get the death penalty

Read More
1646 Words | 7 Pages

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.

Read More
1797 Words | 8 Pages

Melissa Mossey Honors Ethics Dr. Farley Capital Punishment In this essay I will explain the views about capital punishment as expressed by Igor Primoratz, in “Justifying Legal Punishment,” and Stephen Nathanson, in “An Eye for an Eye?”. I will also assert and defend my point of view that capital punishment is wrong, citing several strong utilitarian and Kantian objections. Igor Primoratz discusses the concept of justice purely for the sake of justice. He believes that fair punishment involves depriving a criminal of the same value of which they have deprived their victims.

Read More
756 Words | 4 Pages

Igor Primoratz sets forth an argument that to ensure justice in the legal system the utilization of capital punishment is necessary. According to Primoratz there is no punishment of any equivalence to that of murder, whereas for less severe crimes fines and prison time is reasonable. Primoratz argument consists of three defences to common feedback to the action of capital punishment. The one that was most appealing to me being whether it violates the right to life. To this he responds that when the took the life of another human they lost this right; as these right are only given to those who respect the rights of others.

Read More
1077 Words | 5 Pages

According to Hinman (5), just punishment is the one that happens to those who are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is important because capital punishment is irreversible and hence only the guilty should be executed. However, there are many cases of innocent people who have been sentenced to death only to have their appeals granted at the last minute, or worse, denied and executed. It is on these grounds that Bedau (2007) argues against the death penalty because it is unjust and unfair. About unfairness, he goes on to add that racial and economic discrimination are also a factor to consider when meting out capital punishment.

Read More
1145 Words | 5 Pages

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).

Read More
961 Words | 4 Pages

There has been much controversy over capital punishment over the years. Few people in the United States see capital punishment as being wrong. It is said that Canada is way too easy on their criminals because they do not punish the convicts by the death penalty. Canada says that the United States is way to strict on their criminals because they execute their convicts by the death penalty. Should murderers be murdered for their crimes or should they spend the rest of their lives perishing in prison, that question may soon some day be correctly answered but for now it is strictly your own belief, possibly this essay may change your mind if you are for the death penalty.

Read More
754 Words | 4 Pages

Death penalty or capital punishment is a legal procedure carried out by the government of a state which sentences a convicted person to death. Capital punishment has been a matter of controversy in various countries for decades now. In this essay, Coretta Scott King talks about why she is against the death penalty. The main purpose of this critique is to focus on King’s arguments and evaluate their authenticity and credibility.

Read More
1549 Words | 7 Pages

Is it really possible that a killer will be more deterred by the risk of the death penalty than by having to spend the rest of his life in prison? The claim fails the test of common sense. Criminologists and police chiefs say the death penalty just doesn't influence murderers -- partly because its application is so haphazard. Although some people say the purpose of punishment is not only just to deter but also to retribute. However, this does not justify the idea that a person should be killed because of killing other just like a rapist should also be rapped.

Read More
1048 Words | 5 Pages

In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.

Read More

More about 'Capital Punishment Is Morally Justified'

Related Topics

Open Document