The death penalty is permissible. It is morally permissible to punish those who cruelly take the life of an innocent person through the means of capital punishment. Those who take the life of another with willing malicious intent deserve a punishment that it equal to the crime they committed. Death is the only form of punishment that can come close to matching the heinous act of depriving another the life that they deserve. Anything less would allow a murderer to receive an easier sentence than the one he willingly distributed. A murderer denies their victim their natural born right to life and as a result forfeits their own right to life. Once one has no grounds to claim their right to life it is morally justified to use capital punishment.
…show more content…
This right also allows a person to make decisions regarding what they do and what people that they interact with. Nobody is responsible for you, other than you yourself. The full possession of one’s self also provides protection, in the moral sense, of our lives being taken without our permission. These rights are not absolute and can be striped if one fails their moral obligation to not impede on another’s same right. “If any rights are fundamental, the right to life is certainly one of them; but to claim that it is absolute, inviolable under any circumstances and for any reason, is a different matter” (Primoratz, 127). Let’s discuss the case of Tom and Sue. Tom has been stalking Sue for the last 6 months without her knowledge and is now waiting for Sue in her apartment. Once Sue gets home, Tom attacks her. He physically and sexually abuses her without any consent. Tom’s intent is to kill Sue therefore Sue must defend her body by any means necessary. She grabs the nearest lamp and hits Tom over the head with such force that he is killed instantly. As a society, we view Sue’s “murder” as morally premised because she was protecting herself and her own right to live. Tom, on the other hand, forfeited his right to live once he tried to deny Sue’s rights. Tom had full intent to deprive Sue her right to life, which means he failed to uphold his obligation to respect the life …show more content…
The response to this is simple. First, the offender did not have an issue being inhumane to the person whose life they took. These people do not deserve anything from society once they strip another of their right to live. Murder is never humane, it is never welcome, and it is never going to be accepted. Mental suffering is claimed to come from the months waiting on death row therefore his punishment is inhumane and unjust. This could only be seen as reasonable if “ a criminal warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months” (Primoratz, 129). If the issue is with actual execution then it is not with the idea of capital punishment being enforced but with the way it is carried out. “It hits at something else: a particular way of carrying out this punishment…”(Primoratz, 129). This issue can be addressed. The offender could even choose his method of execution but that choice again was not granted toward the
This right also allows a person to make decisions regarding what they do and what people that they interact with. Nobody is responsible for you, other than you yourself. The full possession of one’s self also provides protection, in the moral sense, of our lives being taken without our permission. These rights are not absolute and can be striped if one fails their moral obligation to not impede on another’s same right. “If any rights are fundamental, the right to life is certainly one of them; but to claim that it is absolute, inviolable under any circumstances and for any reason, is a different matter” (Primoratz, 127). Let’s discuss the case of Tom and Sue. Tom has been stalking Sue for the last 6 months without her knowledge and is now waiting for Sue in her apartment. Once Sue gets home, Tom attacks her. He physically and sexually abuses her without any consent. Tom’s intent is to kill Sue therefore Sue must defend her body by any means necessary. She grabs the nearest lamp and hits Tom over the head with such force that he is killed instantly. As a society, we view Sue’s “murder” as morally premised because she was protecting herself and her own right to live. Tom, on the other hand, forfeited his right to live once he tried to deny Sue’s rights. Tom had full intent to deprive Sue her right to life, which means he failed to uphold his obligation to respect the life …show more content…
The response to this is simple. First, the offender did not have an issue being inhumane to the person whose life they took. These people do not deserve anything from society once they strip another of their right to live. Murder is never humane, it is never welcome, and it is never going to be accepted. Mental suffering is claimed to come from the months waiting on death row therefore his punishment is inhumane and unjust. This could only be seen as reasonable if “ a criminal warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months” (Primoratz, 129). If the issue is with actual execution then it is not with the idea of capital punishment being enforced but with the way it is carried out. “It hits at something else: a particular way of carrying out this punishment…”(Primoratz, 129). This issue can be addressed. The offender could even choose his method of execution but that choice again was not granted toward the