Capital Punishment: an Act of Justice or Revenge?
To many, executing the offender of a heinous and violent murder is seen as an act of justice and retribution, and is an essential aspect of maintaining moral balance, however, perhaps the stronger and more substantial position is that the death penalty is a barbarous act of revenge, motivated by emotion rather than logic. According to the “Retributive Justice Theory” those who break the law deserve to suffer punishment, and likewise, deserve to be punished in proportion to the crime committed. Under this principle, justice demands the execution of those who have committed murder as it is the most appropriate and equal punishment for such a crime, and any punishment whether it be lighter or …show more content…
Revenge is almost always emotionally driven and produced by anger, outrage and vindictiveness, and while it is only natural to feel outraged and disgusted by such heinous and violent crimes, it is incredibly dangerous to allow such emotions to govern our legal response to crime as our emotions often blind us and lead to make decisions that have not been logically thought through. In contrast, justice, by definition, is intended to be the rational, objective and fair treatment of others. By this definition revenge cannot be synonymous with justice and it is clear there is a notable difference between the two. Revenge is an impulsive, emotionally driven and a damaging response to a wrong received. In order for there to be true justice, a punishment must be decided upon logically, unbiasedly, and unemotionally.
Another problem with such a revenge seeking mentality is its inconsistency. If justice truly required an eye for an eye or death for death, as the retributive justice theory suggests, then why is it only ever applied to murder and capital punishment? Under such a principle justice would require that thieves have their belongings stolen, arsonists be lit on fire, and rapists be raped, all things the average person would find absurd or unethical and
To many, executing the offender of a heinous and violent murder is seen as an act of justice and retribution, and is an essential aspect of maintaining moral balance, however, perhaps the stronger and more substantial position is that the death penalty is a barbarous act of revenge, motivated by emotion rather than logic. According to the “Retributive Justice Theory” those who break the law deserve to suffer punishment, and likewise, deserve to be punished in proportion to the crime committed. Under this principle, justice demands the execution of those who have committed murder as it is the most appropriate and equal punishment for such a crime, and any punishment whether it be lighter or …show more content…
Revenge is almost always emotionally driven and produced by anger, outrage and vindictiveness, and while it is only natural to feel outraged and disgusted by such heinous and violent crimes, it is incredibly dangerous to allow such emotions to govern our legal response to crime as our emotions often blind us and lead to make decisions that have not been logically thought through. In contrast, justice, by definition, is intended to be the rational, objective and fair treatment of others. By this definition revenge cannot be synonymous with justice and it is clear there is a notable difference between the two. Revenge is an impulsive, emotionally driven and a damaging response to a wrong received. In order for there to be true justice, a punishment must be decided upon logically, unbiasedly, and unemotionally.
Another problem with such a revenge seeking mentality is its inconsistency. If justice truly required an eye for an eye or death for death, as the retributive justice theory suggests, then why is it only ever applied to murder and capital punishment? Under such a principle justice would require that thieves have their belongings stolen, arsonists be lit on fire, and rapists be raped, all things the average person would find absurd or unethical and