Case 1: Killing the Killer
Introduction: Richard Ramirez was a convicted serial killer and rapist who was sentenced to the death penalty in 1989. He died before the sentenced could be carried out. Numerous individuals thought the death penalty was unjust. However, I agree with the decision to execute Richard Ramirez and that is was the right punishment to issue Richard Ramirez. I will argue that the moral principles of Kantian Ethics, and the theory of Gelernter defend the government’s decision of executing Richard Ramirez.
Reason 1: As outlined in Kantian Ethics, anyone who had committed murder must be murdered himself. This is done to establish justice and complete our duty to punish wrong doers in the correct manner. Additionally, the …show more content…
In today’s society murder is frequent and common that many individuals just look the other way when they read about murder happening. For example, Gelernter was attacked by the criminal that goes by the name of the “Unabomber”. When convicted of his crimes, the Unabomber received eight life sentences instead of the death penalty. The world just shrugged their shoulders when finding out he committed murder. Gelernter felt that there was no powerful statement against him. Issuing Richard Ramirez the death penalty makes a powerful statement that the lives he took mattered, and that the crimes he committed was evil, similar to the Unabomber. It shows society that we value human life, and we stand up for that. Richard Ramirez did not show value for human life. If the United States did not execute him, then they would not be giving out a communal proclamation that murder is not tolerated and human life matters. It will get society to become more aware and stop shrugging their shoulders when murder …show more content…
The death penalty is indeed flawed, but this is what appeals and clemency are for. Death row inmates usually wait decades for their execution to occur, so this gives plenty of time for lawyers and the court to look into more evidence and appeals. Yes, there has been a plethora of cases where even after appeals and clemency has been exhausted, an innocent individual is still executed. However, instead of abandoning the death penalty altogether, we should learn how to strengthen the system instead of giving up on it all together. No one thing can be made to be perfect, but it can be fixed upon. The death penalty is made to punish the wrong doers, the ones who are guilty. If we work harder to make sure this is what always happens, then almost no innocents will be executed. Appeals and clemency do not always work, but it makes it easier for someone who is innocent to get time to clear their name. This one of the pros of the death penalty that can help strengthen the system. Richard Ramirez, if he was innocent which he indeed wasn’t, had a lot of time to clear his name, since he was on death row for over 23 years.
Conclusion: These ethical principles demonstrate why it is morally justified that Richard Ramirez was sentenced to death. Murder should not be tolerated, and murderers, especially ones who show no remorse similar to Richard Ramirez, should be given their just desserts. Humans are
Introduction: Richard Ramirez was a convicted serial killer and rapist who was sentenced to the death penalty in 1989. He died before the sentenced could be carried out. Numerous individuals thought the death penalty was unjust. However, I agree with the decision to execute Richard Ramirez and that is was the right punishment to issue Richard Ramirez. I will argue that the moral principles of Kantian Ethics, and the theory of Gelernter defend the government’s decision of executing Richard Ramirez.
Reason 1: As outlined in Kantian Ethics, anyone who had committed murder must be murdered himself. This is done to establish justice and complete our duty to punish wrong doers in the correct manner. Additionally, the …show more content…
In today’s society murder is frequent and common that many individuals just look the other way when they read about murder happening. For example, Gelernter was attacked by the criminal that goes by the name of the “Unabomber”. When convicted of his crimes, the Unabomber received eight life sentences instead of the death penalty. The world just shrugged their shoulders when finding out he committed murder. Gelernter felt that there was no powerful statement against him. Issuing Richard Ramirez the death penalty makes a powerful statement that the lives he took mattered, and that the crimes he committed was evil, similar to the Unabomber. It shows society that we value human life, and we stand up for that. Richard Ramirez did not show value for human life. If the United States did not execute him, then they would not be giving out a communal proclamation that murder is not tolerated and human life matters. It will get society to become more aware and stop shrugging their shoulders when murder …show more content…
The death penalty is indeed flawed, but this is what appeals and clemency are for. Death row inmates usually wait decades for their execution to occur, so this gives plenty of time for lawyers and the court to look into more evidence and appeals. Yes, there has been a plethora of cases where even after appeals and clemency has been exhausted, an innocent individual is still executed. However, instead of abandoning the death penalty altogether, we should learn how to strengthen the system instead of giving up on it all together. No one thing can be made to be perfect, but it can be fixed upon. The death penalty is made to punish the wrong doers, the ones who are guilty. If we work harder to make sure this is what always happens, then almost no innocents will be executed. Appeals and clemency do not always work, but it makes it easier for someone who is innocent to get time to clear their name. This one of the pros of the death penalty that can help strengthen the system. Richard Ramirez, if he was innocent which he indeed wasn’t, had a lot of time to clear his name, since he was on death row for over 23 years.
Conclusion: These ethical principles demonstrate why it is morally justified that Richard Ramirez was sentenced to death. Murder should not be tolerated, and murderers, especially ones who show no remorse similar to Richard Ramirez, should be given their just desserts. Humans are