Capital Punishment is Dead Wrong
Capital punishment, such as the death penalty, is an intolerable denial of civil liberties and is inconsistent with the fundamental values of our democratic system; the death penalty is uncivilized in theory and unfair and inequitable in practice. There should not be a death penalty in action. It isn’t as effective as other options out there, and is morally wrong. The death penalty isn’t the best form of prevention, closure and isn’t the economical smart choice. In addition to that, it stirs an immense deal of controversy.
The death penalty is not the most efficient form of prevention for offenders. The excuse being used for putting or keeping the death penalty in action for prevention is incompetent reasoning. …show more content…
In the long run a substantial number of victims feel uncomfortable with the idea of the offender who had been sentenced to death (Kritische Houding). This also deprives the victims of closure; now they will never have the opportunity to hear the reason, explanation, or excuse to the offender’s actions. This “corporal punishment” is not a remedy, granted it may provide instant gratification, all the victim’s close ones genuinely want is to bring back life. There are other forms of punishment, such as eternal imprisonment with a minimal of facilities, bread, water, and no one to …show more content…
A decent country does not punish eye for an eye. What’s the difference between you and the killer if you act in the same manner? How can you say that killing is wrong by killing a person? You cannot; it’s contradictory. Also the majority is against the death penalty. As a democracy the death penalty should be a democratic choice. “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” (Ghandi) Execution is a messy action, and with it comes copious questions. Where do you draw the line? Drawing a line is arbitrary. Weather you give the death penalty for multiple murders, a political murder, abuse, or drug distributors it will be a difficult decision and not ours as a society to make. No one should have the power to choose who gets the live and who has to die. Another issue with execution is that prosecutors and judges are only human meaning that they will make mistakes.
Since 1973, 156 people on death row have been released due to being innocent. Another problem that the death penalty opens up is the fact that a doctor’s presence is mandatory as they will be involved as long as the use of lethal injections stays. When lethal injections don’t work correctly a doctor will be required to assist, but the situation at hand may clash with the oath of Hippocrates (Hippocratic Oath) or their personal morality, as ample people in that field want to help people be healthy. With the death penalty in place innocent people
Capital punishment, such as the death penalty, is an intolerable denial of civil liberties and is inconsistent with the fundamental values of our democratic system; the death penalty is uncivilized in theory and unfair and inequitable in practice. There should not be a death penalty in action. It isn’t as effective as other options out there, and is morally wrong. The death penalty isn’t the best form of prevention, closure and isn’t the economical smart choice. In addition to that, it stirs an immense deal of controversy.
The death penalty is not the most efficient form of prevention for offenders. The excuse being used for putting or keeping the death penalty in action for prevention is incompetent reasoning. …show more content…
In the long run a substantial number of victims feel uncomfortable with the idea of the offender who had been sentenced to death (Kritische Houding). This also deprives the victims of closure; now they will never have the opportunity to hear the reason, explanation, or excuse to the offender’s actions. This “corporal punishment” is not a remedy, granted it may provide instant gratification, all the victim’s close ones genuinely want is to bring back life. There are other forms of punishment, such as eternal imprisonment with a minimal of facilities, bread, water, and no one to …show more content…
A decent country does not punish eye for an eye. What’s the difference between you and the killer if you act in the same manner? How can you say that killing is wrong by killing a person? You cannot; it’s contradictory. Also the majority is against the death penalty. As a democracy the death penalty should be a democratic choice. “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” (Ghandi) Execution is a messy action, and with it comes copious questions. Where do you draw the line? Drawing a line is arbitrary. Weather you give the death penalty for multiple murders, a political murder, abuse, or drug distributors it will be a difficult decision and not ours as a society to make. No one should have the power to choose who gets the live and who has to die. Another issue with execution is that prosecutors and judges are only human meaning that they will make mistakes.
Since 1973, 156 people on death row have been released due to being innocent. Another problem that the death penalty opens up is the fact that a doctor’s presence is mandatory as they will be involved as long as the use of lethal injections stays. When lethal injections don’t work correctly a doctor will be required to assist, but the situation at hand may clash with the oath of Hippocrates (Hippocratic Oath) or their personal morality, as ample people in that field want to help people be healthy. With the death penalty in place innocent people