Arguments On The Death Penalty

1393 Words 6 Pages
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