The death penalty in the United States has been a controversial issue for a very long time. The first time anyone ever opposed to the death penalty was in Colonial America. This was not too long after the first execution in the 1700’s. Over time, many countries have abolished the death penalty, but the United States is one of the few countries that still defends and supports the continued use. However, there is evidence that the attitudes about the death penalty is changing. The debate has shifted to weather the death penalty is appropriate in the modern society. The debate had many standpoints. Morality, Constitutionality, Deterrence, Retribution, Arbitrariness/Discrimination and Innocence. There are pros and cons to each issues which leaves
…show more content…
If we, humans, call ourselves moral creatures we must celebrated the good and punish the bad. Punishment can be a ride range of things, but the punishment must fit the crime. The old saying “an eye for an eye” supports this theory. This theory may also be referred to as lex talionis. If taken literal, we must rape rapist and burn down the houses of arsonist. In the modern world, we can’t take such a concept as literal as we would like. If it is not okay to rape rapist, why is it okay to execute murders? The answer seems to be that there is no redeeming value to carrying out the former punishment. Raping the rapist will not stop the rapist from raping someone else. It will only cause someone to degrade themselves. However, executing murders will allow them to never be able to commit such a crime again. This is in turn can me a good thing. Abolitionist may say that killing is outright wrong. The issue with this is it must be taken from all sides. If killing is wrong, then kill in self-defense is wrong and should be punished. The abolitionist may also argue that the state should never kill. Supporters now bring in the point that the police, who works for the state kills every day to say a victim’s life. If the police is justified, then the question about killing being wrong seems to have to be thrown …show more content…
One’s life is at the discretion of a counsel. The death penalty does not single out the worst offenders. A murderer who kills 10 people may be sentenced to life in prison and a murderer who kills 2 may be sentenced to the death penalty. There is no set rule. Many irrational factors are taken into place when deciding who gets the death penalty. The quality of the defense counsel and the race of the defendant and/or victim are two of the most important factors. More likely than not, the defendants facing the death penalty cannot afford their own attorney. This means that they are given an attorney by the state. These attorneys may lack experience is such big cases or are underpaid, therefore, they don’t even try to investigate the correct way. When it comes to race, studies have shown that the death penalty is more likely to be used when a black person murders a white person. Since the death penalty began again in 1976, 202 black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white victim. It has only been 12 white defendants when the race is flipped. This means the death penalty values white lives more than black
If we, humans, call ourselves moral creatures we must celebrated the good and punish the bad. Punishment can be a ride range of things, but the punishment must fit the crime. The old saying “an eye for an eye” supports this theory. This theory may also be referred to as lex talionis. If taken literal, we must rape rapist and burn down the houses of arsonist. In the modern world, we can’t take such a concept as literal as we would like. If it is not okay to rape rapist, why is it okay to execute murders? The answer seems to be that there is no redeeming value to carrying out the former punishment. Raping the rapist will not stop the rapist from raping someone else. It will only cause someone to degrade themselves. However, executing murders will allow them to never be able to commit such a crime again. This is in turn can me a good thing. Abolitionist may say that killing is outright wrong. The issue with this is it must be taken from all sides. If killing is wrong, then kill in self-defense is wrong and should be punished. The abolitionist may also argue that the state should never kill. Supporters now bring in the point that the police, who works for the state kills every day to say a victim’s life. If the police is justified, then the question about killing being wrong seems to have to be thrown …show more content…
One’s life is at the discretion of a counsel. The death penalty does not single out the worst offenders. A murderer who kills 10 people may be sentenced to life in prison and a murderer who kills 2 may be sentenced to the death penalty. There is no set rule. Many irrational factors are taken into place when deciding who gets the death penalty. The quality of the defense counsel and the race of the defendant and/or victim are two of the most important factors. More likely than not, the defendants facing the death penalty cannot afford their own attorney. This means that they are given an attorney by the state. These attorneys may lack experience is such big cases or are underpaid, therefore, they don’t even try to investigate the correct way. When it comes to race, studies have shown that the death penalty is more likely to be used when a black person murders a white person. Since the death penalty began again in 1976, 202 black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white victim. It has only been 12 white defendants when the race is flipped. This means the death penalty values white lives more than black