Arguments On The Death Penalty

Improved Essays
A popular topic in our country today is the death penalty. Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said, “In any case, frequent punishments are a sign of weakness or slackness in the government. I think that there is no man so bad that he cannot be made good for something. No man should be put to death, even as an example, if he can be left to live without danger to society.” When considering the death penalty, some thoughts I had were: Is he mentally stable? Is the murderer actually guilty, or just wrongly accused? After researching the death penalty and seeing both sides, I decided the anti-death penalty side had a more convincing argument. The death penalty does not deter murderers, retribution has no place in our legal system, and innocent people can …show more content…
People executed or put on death row, in my opinion, are only put there as revenge for the victim. The execution is not justifying the convicted criminal’s actions, but rather the execution is only “retribution” for the crime they committed. When considering the survey in 2010, most people are against the death penalty, and even the families of the victim(s) say they would rather not have the pain and guilt of murdering another human being. If the family of a victim would rather have the criminal imprisoned, then why doesn’t the government feel the same way? There is no room for vengeance and a revenge stance in our justice system. The arguing stance for the death penalty says it deters murders, but in reality, the death penalty just leads to another loss of human life - regardless of the murder being an execution. When somebody tortures another human being, the government does not decide to torture that person in return. It’s the same for a rapist; the government does not rape the rapist. So, why does the government decide to murder the murderer? A famous quote “The end justifies the means.” was loosely derived through Niccolò Machiavelli’s work The Prince. To people supporting the death penalty this statement is accurate, “an eye for an eye” justification. For people against the death penalty, the end does not justify the means, and it truly does not. …show more content…
To quote Gandhi, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” This quote holds some key evidence for the death penalty. Taking one man’s life to justify the murder of another is preposterous! Executing someone does not restore balance. At the start of researching the death penalty, my view was initially in favor of the death penalty, but after all the research and facts, my conclusive view is against the death penalty. I found that my views changed and even though I might have been for the death penalty at the beginning, after my research I found that the death penalty is nothing more than the government reminding everyone that in the end, they have the final say. The world today is becoming too government oriented and that isn’t what the founding fathers intended. When considering the death penalty, should the legal system not value the worth of human

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    But a number of people are still against the death penalty for moral reasons, even though, it would bring them safety. In Stanley Marcus’s article, “Public Safety Requires the Death Penalty” Marcus questions convicted murderers about their crimes, “they had no hesitation in killing again and again because they were subject to no more severe punishment than if they were convicted of robbery - and often even less.” (New York Times Article Marcus). We need capital punishment to frighten criminals and to get rid of them when they do wrong. Clearly, these criminals have no morals about killing, so why should we risk our safety to keep them alive? The convicted killers even admitted that they had no hesitation in killing the first time and they would have no hesitation killing again.…

    • 1122 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Repeal Capital Punishment

    • 2254 Words
    • 9 Pages

    From my understanding, it is supposed to make criminals not commit crimes in order to get on death row but this hasn 't worked and will not work. Laws are intended to correct, by definition laws can’t obey, or isn’t intended to imitate or reproduce that nature of man. (Bedau, Cassell) The law says we can 't follow or obey the nature of man that 's exactly what we 're doing by following through with Capital Punishment. The by putting people on death row and to kill them is exactly what they did was murder because you 're taking someone 's life. This should be the start in stopping the Death Penalty because it 's morally wrong just like murdering is but just because it 's run by the government and the justice system doesn’t make it okay!…

    • 2254 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Some people may get closure from executions, others will move with their lives. Yet, some individuals never find peace. So, it would not be right to say that the death penalty gives closure to the victim 's family. In addition to this, the proponents of the death penalty argue that it is moral to kill the murderers. They seem to believe in an eye for an eye justice.…

    • 1902 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Contrary to Meehan’s view, the death penalty deters crime. While there is no way to bring victims back from the dead, the death penalty gives justice to the victim’s family. When potential criminals know they might be put to death for a crime, they will be more hesitant than if though punishment were less severs. The death penalty makes sense as a consequence for crimes, like murder, where the victims’ families must live with the horrors of being attacked. Allowing their attackers to go free after just a few years is hardly justice.…

    • 807 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Bruck states, “I don’t claim that executions of entirely innocent people will occur very often. But they will occur” (Bruck 495). Bruck wants assurance that if the death penalty is going to put to action, to at least be sure that the person being convicted of the crime is truly guilty. Imagine all those people who were executed and were innocent. Like Koch and Bruck, justice should be equal for all, but in Bruck’s defense, justice wouldn’t be equal for all if innocent people were killed for a crime they did not commit and the sad part is that you can’t fix it because they would be already…

    • 834 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The system doesn’t require treating those guilty of barbaric crimes barbarically. Proportionality principle can play a role in our thinking about punishments; again it doesn’t help with death penalty advocates. Out of all these main beliefs they all fail to reveal a distinguished supporting system with the death penalty. Could we just abolish the death penalty and not worry about it at all. Stephen reclaims that we as humans have respect for human dignity, we can punish people for their crimes but we can’t deprive them of everything, which the death penalty does.…

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In simplicity, the only difference between capital punishment and murder is whether or not the taking of one’s life is performed by the government, and therefore lawful. The murder of Carlos DeLuna never received the justice it deserved because of the circumstances of his death. How can we continue to call this great nation fair if it is not held to the same standards as its citizens? It has been engraved in our minds since childhood that murder is wrong. We teach not to kill, preach the preservation of life, and punish those for not following these laws, yet we as a society are in turn ourselves killers for allowing the death penalty to remain an ineffective and inconsistent method of attempting to control crime in the United States.…

    • 902 Words
    • 4 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

    (1350)Against the Death Penalty: An Analysis of Reiman’s “Moderate” Retribution Theory This argument against the death penalty will examine the “moderate retribution theory of Jeffrey Reiman. In this theory, the premise of retribution for murder defines the validation of the death penalty, yet not in the abuse of justice found in the American criminal justice system. Reiman believes that the death penalty should be abolished because criminals are not always cognitively aware of the crimes that they commit, which demands the rehabilitation of the individual. Reiman argues against the death penalty because it offers an extreme form of punishment for crimes that are rarely “conscious” in the mind of the criminal. This moderate form of retribution…

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Later on he admitted that he “knew I wouldn’t go to the chair”, which he used to justify why he killed her without hesitation (Kosh). However, if New York had the implementation of the death penalty at that point in time, then perhaps Luis Vera would have reevaluated himself and not murdered Rosa Velez. When enacting the death penalty there is no defined right or wrong, only a crime against humanity, and the justice that follows suit. Humans hold morals on a pedestal, however, when it comes to the moment of conviction, one should stick to the facts surrounding the trial because appointing justice should have a higher importance than one’s individual perception. Violence holds an inevitable status in society, but with the death penalty acting as a form of justice, crime will gradually deteriorate until safety becomes a…

    • 1243 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays