Modern Capital Punishment

Improved Essays
Throughout the course of history, human beings have seemed to have a yearning for their fair organization in their communities. However, as communities evolved into societies there seemed to be a clear division amongst citizens: the law abiders and the criminals. Different societies and cultures eventually assigned punishments to crimes committed that seemed fit to the circumstances, ranging from theft to murder. Many would agree progressive countries in today’s modern world have modified different punishments in correlation to various crimes because of unjust sentencing or the punishment being too harsh altogether. The question is, “Why have heinous crimes today received lighter punishment than in the past?” In medieval times, the punishments …show more content…
Many people have condemned capital punishment, as well as praised it. Beccaria (2010), a classical philosopher on the death penalty, heavily critiqued the entire process entailing capital punishment. His key argument is that capital punishment does not prevent the offenders, but in its place, the long-term detention makes a long lasting impression on the attention of the audience. In addition, the death penalty has injurious impacts on the society by minimizing the sensitivity to human suffering. The proponents argue that if the law was just left to be open and allow the criminals to be treated equal then, it will be very dangerous to the public (Masur,1989). The main aim of the death penalty and capital punishment is to detain dangerous criminals so we could deter them from joining the public again and prevent them from spreading criminal offense again. While Beccaria’s stance could be said true, how do we explain criminals’ behavior after they are released? We could even go as far as saying when a person is incarcerated, they often worsen in their psychological condition. Often times those who have a record of imprisonment are praised for “serving time” and continue on in their dysfunctional behavior that in turn has a detrimental effect on society. Also, in regards to minimizing the sensitivity to human suffering, the person who committed a crime worthy of the death penalty obviously has no sensitivity …show more content…
They claim it to be a justification for capital punishment, and as a justification it could later down the road cause absurd rulings to be acceptable For example, this ruling from Law of Hammurabi: “If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kills the son of the owner, then the son of that builder shall be put to death.” (Fieser, 2008). People who are against capital punishment use an extreme perspective to try and prove how horrible capital punishment can be. However, in a civilized society where a jury and judge could come together as a part of democracy it is safe to say this ruling would be viewed as utterly absurd. When a question of how to go about serving justice with capital punishment arises we look at it from a logical standpoint. We do not go ahead with an extreme and irrational approach and say, Jeffery Dahmer had serval victims thus meaning Dahmer and some of his family members must be executed several times. It is a childish way of trying to serve justice. Being a serial killer and taking sole responsibility, only Jeffery Dahmer deserve to be executed for his

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Society thinks the worst of a person when given the opportunity, we are known to become subjective, which is normal although it leads to a false verdict. This way of thinking not only involves automatic, negative judgment, but can be an oblivious conclusion. In some cases, a person can testify against someone and say they are responsible for a murder, this gives the accuser a witness. Capital punishment is a subject that has its faults and Edward Koch states, “If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn’t exist, government wouldn’t function at all” (Koch 2). This is a reason why capital punishment is still in question after all these decades.…

    • 1069 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Although it makes sense for safety reasons that violent offenders are incarcerated, we should make incarceration more humane. As Robert A. Heinlein asks about the death penalty, “Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?” We pride ourselves that we live in the Land of the Free, and yet our incarceration rate and reliance on capital punishment tell a different story. It’s time to try more mercy for a…

    • 701 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He points out that executor jobs are just as degrading and uncomfortable as any other job can be, and also makes a strong statement on how the death penalty is a way of catharsis that directly affected victims and communities get. These points are effective in favor for the death penalty. However, Mencken’s argument that death row prisoners, after running out of appeals, should not have to wait long terms of time until they are put to death is not reasonable. These murderers should be allowed to suffer alive during the long wait because of their horrible…

    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Death Penalty Debate

    • 1043 Words
    • 5 Pages

    I believe it is a great advantage because it can lower a great amount of people attempting murder. It intimidates future criminals from making crimes as well as performs revenge to the criminal and that shouldn 't be seen in a wrong way. There are many arguments against the death penalty, but they are usually not valid when looked deeply into the topic. It is important that all states come to an agreement and use death penalty rather than some states being legal and some not. The death penalty is useful in sentencing criminals that have committed some of the worst crimes known to society.…

    • 1043 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Burns this punishment should be death, but what about the person’s fundamental rights 's to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Although Burns does not directly address it in this chapter, I believe he feels that when you commit a crime you lose these fundamental rights. But are these not fundamental rights that everyone is guaranteed under the Constitution? Their is no clause in the Constitution that says unless your a murder, you lose these rights. Allowing the government to legally kill the guilty person is wrong, and violates this person’s legal rights.…

    • 1468 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Why is the death penalty still around? Capital punishment is the legal killing of an individual as a consequence of an unlawful act they commit. The death penalty has had an increased resentment but has not been abolished largely due to the belief that it is a deterrent to violent crime. There are a myriad of reasons why this punishment is looked down upon in society mainly structured on the argument that it is ineffective and paradoxical in the way it serves justice. The death penalty is ineffective in the process it takes to punish criminals and in the ways it makes society safer.…

    • 1116 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He becomes a big supporter of the death penalty which is dominant in his paper where he list different objections to the death penalty than counteracts them. Koch starts off by saying that the death penalty is simply barbaric. The action itself is not barbaric due to its purpose of killing without suffering. A down side of killing people is you cannot take the death penalty back. Once they are dead its over no mulligans, so it should be difficult to make this decision.…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Certainly, Reiman’s moderate theory of retribution provides a pathway to abolishing the death penalty because many individuals that are given the death penalty are victims of an aggressive and overly reactionary criminal justice system. This is one way to argue in favor of removing the death penalty through Reiman’s argument on reactionary cycle of a “eye for an eye” mentality, which creates extreme judgments that cannot be overturned if the individual is later found to be innocent. Reiman is aware of the long tradition of the death penalty as a form of retributive justice, but he finds it impractical in terms of being an accurate judge of the intent and motives of the alleged…

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    One major aspect of the death penalty that works in favor of society is that it preconditions the minds of the perpetrator (Gealogo). The death penalty does act as a deterrent to crime as the person planning to, terrorize, murder, rape etc,) will think twice before carrying out major acts of violence. If the likeliness for a crime to be committed goes down because of fear of the death penalty, the only outcome is positive as it provides safety for the general public (Gealogo). This shines light upon a major drawback that would come of abolishing the death penalty, as it shows weakness and tolerance for unacceptable, violent crimes. In addition, a major weighing factor for the death penalty is justice for the victim(s) and their families (Steroff).…

    • 1648 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If somebody does not realize that going around murder people is incorrect, then I trust, that letting such people live is not only a great threat to the society, but also a great problem. Critic of the death penalty, Adam Belau, wrote, "Prevention by means of incapacitation occurs only if the executed…

    • 1259 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics