More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical arguments against capital punishment
Death penalty ethical debate
Ethical arguments against capital punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical arguments against capital punishment
David B. Muhlhausen wrote an article “How the death penalty saves lives,” With a heading of “Capital punishment curbs criminal behavior and promotes a safer country.” Muhlhausen talks about a man named Earl Ringo Jr, his purpose was to bring the question ‘How does the death penalty saves lives,’ into people's minds. The date of this article is Sept. 29, 2014, Muhlhausen works for US New and World Report. Muhlhausen informs ages 10 and up in this article because death penalty might be a little too harsh for little kids who still do not even know what death is yet. Therefor, Muhlhausen also states examples of how the death penalty can save lives.
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.
Even though the death penalty can produce irreversible miscarriage of justice, death penalty should be allowed because it provides comfort to the victim's family, it deters crime, and you know the criminal will never hurt anyone again. Even though the death penalty can produce irreversible miscarriages of justice, Death penalty should be allowed because it provides comfort to the victim's family. Family and friends of the victims should never have to worry about parole or a slight chance of that same criminal escaping. Knowing that that one person
The three most common reasons for retaining the death penalty are retribution, deterrence, and assuagement. Assuagement of course, refers to easing the pain of the victim's loved ones. Retribution is a society's need to “punish particularly egregious crimes.” Deterrence is the desire to prevent future crimes. By maintaining punishment for horrendous crimes in our
The first objection is that the death penalty does not "provide a measure of moral desert" (Nathanson). For the second, Nathanson states "it does not provide an adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment." The main objection is an "eye for an eye", or Lex talionis, and I believe it fails to support equality retributivism and creates punishments that are morally unacceptable. There is no way that
Currently, the death sentence is only applied to those who commit murder, however, in the past, it has also been used for rape and armed robbery. Arguing in favor it can seem justifiable to take the life of a person who unjustifiably took the life of someone else. And with murder being the only way to be sentenced to the death penalty it seems fitting. Along with that, it provides deterrence from committing murder for possibly many people. The deterrence that execution provides is a debated topic nested into another controversial topic.
How might a utilitarian argue against the death penalty? In other words, think about the benefits and harms involved, and explain how we might weigh the benefits and harms against one another to produce the greatest sum total of happiness/good in society. • A utilitarian might react to the death penalty when in favor of it with “an eye for an eye” it is fair and just. The
There are also many different sides and views upon the topic. For example, people are for the death penalty because they think that some criminals deserve it. Others think that nobody should be put to death, no matter their crimes. One issue is that it does cost more to have people put to death rather than a life sentence without the chance of parole. Another issue is that there is a small chance that an innocent person could get convicted and sentenced to death killing an innocent man.
It not only violates the right to live as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Amnesty International 2007 1) but also through the methods used, such as lethal injection, and death by firing squad, "is the ultimate, cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment.” (Amnesty International 2007 1). According to Utilitarianism theory, the death penalty would, therefore, be disapproved, as it "is administered in a way to make the criminal pay for their crime" (Binghampton University 2015). Secondly, there is the belief that the death penalty cannot be morally justified, it is after all the basic moral truth that to intentionally end another’s life is an immoral act, for one generally has interest in self-preservation and perceived future of value (Tzovarras 2002 5). Whilst utilitarianism can be used to support the death penalty, due to it often being perceived to maximise the great pleasure for the greatest number, it can be argued that through the injustices in the justice system, as well as the prejudice in society, that it maximises suffering and pain.
Although the death penalty may bring some closure to families of the victims and even the victims themselves it still should be abolished because the negatives outweigh the positives. People could be murdered by the state even if they are innocent. They are taking away any chance these people have at a normal life even though it's a life that they deserve and did nothing to have it taken away. 6. Conclusion
Capital murder is one of the most controversial topics in this country. It 's a very two sided argument, many people have their own opinion on the topic. It is a sensitive topic for some people because, personal feelings and emotions really come into play when discussing the death penalty. There are a vast amount of reason that serve great for being against it but, there is also just as many fantastic reasons as of why we should keep using capital murder. There are those who believe that no human being, no matter how much power or jurisdiction they have, should not have the ability and power to take away another persons life.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, all these phrases are associated with the death penalty. The death penalty, a concept that has been around since the dawn of human existence, has been a controversy in recent decades in the United States, with strong support and strong disagreement. However, even though it is supported by a large amount of states, and has been found to be in the lines of the Constitution it still violates one thing, ethical reasoning. Principle of Utility assert that a concept’s actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. The death penalty does not.
The punishment of execution is a sensitive law and there is no choice to revoke it or reform it because the spirit of man can not be returned. Moreover, the punishment of death does constitute a violation of one's rights to life, which is the most basic human
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.
The major reason why the death penalty should be abolished is that the cost of the death penalty is too much and the USA is in debt to many other countries. What this means is that the death penalty should be abolished and also the cost death penalty is more than the cost of maximum sentence life in prison. According to J. Marceau and H. Whitson, “The Cost of Colorado’s Death penalty,” 3 Univ. of Denver Criminal Law Review “A new study of the cost of the death penalty in Colorado revealed that capital proceedings require six times more days in court and
