The Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty

The definition of murder according to law.com is “the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought” (Hill 2015). Is the death penalty not, in fact, the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought? If one follows that definition then the death penalty is indeed, murder. Our government claims it is not murder through the guise of legal reasoning. Does that make it right? As long as we elect representatives to impose the death penalty, it is very difficult for us to say that it constitutes murder in any commonly used sense of the word. Does the fact that it is a government-condoned murder imply the action is morally acceptable? “Ultimately, the moral question surrounding capital punishment in America has less to do with whether those convicted of violent crime deserve to die than with whether state and federal governments deserve to kill those whom it has imprisoned” (Bedau & Cassell). Each state decides whether or not they will utilize the death penalty through the use of political figures.

So are we all in a sense accomplices? Deep down, morally, I feel I am guilty of helping sentence someone to death. I know I did not order the execution but I elected the person that did. I agreed with the legalization of the death penalty. Before this class, morally, I never realized how big of a part the public plays in the death penalty. We can elect the right people when it comes to the death penalty so we do not have to feel like we are accomplices. Is retribution a justifiable reason to not feel morally guilty? As the bible says “an eye for an