Should Death Penalty Be Legal?

Decent Essays
Capital punishment results in death by execution. Capital punishment is legalized in 31 states and abolished in 19 states (Death Penalty Information Center). I believe the death penalty should be legal in all 50 of the United states in the form of first degree murder. First degree murder is In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life (lectlaw.com). There are many reasons as to why I believe the death penalty should be legal in all …show more content…
The argument has been proven that it is proven to be moral to use the death penalty as a punishment for taking someone else’s life. This was proven by Immanuel Kant who put forth the idea that, “a society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else’s life is simply immoral” (ProCon.org). When it comes to justice there is a concept called proportionality which basically says the punishment should fit the crime. In other words if you take a life you should expect to have your life be taken too. It is worth it to take into consideration that without this concept death would be an appropriate punishment for all who use force for whatever crime they are committing. A lack of justice being properly served would also encourage the citizens to take justice into their own hands since the state will not do anything to properly punish the criminal. It is immoral to not properly punish a person who has committed such a horrendous crime. “The criminal is also executed humanely; in no way is he subjected to torture or any form of cruelty. All states that use the death penalty use lethal injection; the days of subjecting a prisoner to hanging or the electric chair are long gone in the US. Inmates are first given a large dose of an anesthetic so they do not feel any pain (Bosner).” The above statement made by Bosner proves the death penalty is moral and …show more content…
This has not happened since the death penalty was reintroduced in 1976. Steven D. Stewart refutes this argument: “…No system of justice can produce results which are 100% certain all the time. Mistakes will be made in any system which relies upon human testimony for proof. We should be vigilant to uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. However, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976…The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal…” Even though some people overestimate this fact of innocent citizens being executed, there is room for small mistakes but that does not mean the death penalty should be abolished due to

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Once they are dead its over no mulligans, so it should be difficult to make this decision. Koch has a great quote where he says; “If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn 't exist, government wouldn 't function at all.” meaning that government his flawed at all levels and should not be trusted with life. The most important replay Koch gives is does the death penalty cheapen the cost of a life. The death penalty must be seen as the ultimate punishment and not throw around. Yes Koch says if you cannot measure the cost of a human life, but murder can be a ruthless crime, but to condemn another man to death is not only costing that man his life but the emotional weight on the judge jury and the…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Stephen reclaims that we as humans have respect for human dignity, we can punish people for their crimes but we can’t deprive them of everything, which the death penalty does. With the death penalty it’s basically saying to that convict that your life is basically worthless and has no human value. Nathanson believes we are not in any right position to affirm that to anyone. The main reason why this is such a big dispute is that people think a murderer has forfeited is rights as a human being, or morally free to kill him or her. To me though they do forfeit some of their rights but at the same time they are still a human being like the rest of us.…

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Nathanson who is an abolitionist is going to answer negatively to this whereas Haag response who is retentionists will answer positively. Nathanson believes the death penalty is immoral, he talks about two versions of what he calls equality, as a retributivist, where the punishment must fit the crime committed. The two versions are strict Lex talionis “eye for an eye” or that the punishment must bring about the same harm to the wrongdoer as it did to the victim. Nathanson argues that there are problems with Lex talionis, it suggests punishments that are morally unacceptable. Nathanson believes that punishment does not need to be hundred percent the same, it just needs to inflict the same amount of suffering.…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Actually I do not want to say that all mentally handicapped people should be exposed to the death penalty because it is not good for rule of society and humanity. However, some people pose fatal danger to the society in highly an inhumane way, like as this example. In such a way, the death penalty becomes crucial for the benefit of the society. I claim each criminal, do not care how inhuman s/he is, and should be given the minimum one chance to modification him/herself. So, I do not recommend the death penalty for people who have done only one killing.…

    • 1259 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In the surveys to the general public, when given the alternative of life imprisonment without parole as opposed to the death penalty, the approval rate for the death penalty dropped. The death penalty should be abolished due to its inability to carry out one of its purposes of preventing other crime from oc-curring. In a perfect world, the death penalty would not ensue any racial or geographical bias, and there would be an even-handedness or general way of carrying out this punishment. Howev-er, this nation’s method fails to distribute it equally. The value of a human’s life cannot be meas-ure; consequently, the life’s worth cannot be equated with that of another’s life.…

    • 1610 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Opposing The Death Penalty

    • 1180 Words
    • 5 Pages

    We cannot even justify its practice by saying that it deters crime. 88% of criminologists believe that the death penalty is ineffective in stopping crime (Gillespie). This makes sense seeing as a planned murders don’t make up the majority of capital crimes committed. If even this argument in support for the death penalty can be refuted then we must conclude that the only rational we have left in keeping the death penalty is our own need for revenge on the criminals who have committed unforgivable acts. The need to set things right and restore balance is not necessarily bad in itself.…

    • 1180 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    People argue that the criminal deserves the pain and torture before they die because of the crime they committed. A human should not be tortured or put through any sort of physical pain for what they have done. Even the guilty have a right for life. To learn from mistakes and make a better life for themselves. Nick Gillespie states, “ The state’s first role—and arguably its only one—is protecting the lives and property of its citizens” (“Get Rid of the Death Penalty”).…

    • 1142 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He then argues that the only time murder would be deterred is when people get in bar fights, or other unplanned deaths. Which he then justifies aren't common at all, and don't always result in a first degree murder sentence. He concludes with stating that having the death penalty in place as a deterrence of murder is a ludicrous idea. I will be able to use this source within writing project 3 because it will help support the argument for the death penalty. This writing will also argue against the idea of the death penalty being a means of deterrence in committing murder.…

    • 802 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Death Penalty Case Study

    • 1753 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Q1. What is your opinion on the death penalty? Life is a human right and I believe that the death penalty is wrong and a past time. I understand that when an individual commits a severe indictable offence such as murder, rape or terrorism, they should be punished but they shouldn’t be executed, because it violates that right. I don’t agree with the death penalty because it does not act as a deterrent as people continue to murder on a regular basis, it cannot be reversed, therefore if the person was found to be innocent after a conviction they can be released but if they have already been executed an innocent person has been killed by error.…

    • 1753 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Repeal Capital Punishment

    • 2254 Words
    • 9 Pages

    From my understanding, it is supposed to make criminals not commit crimes in order to get on death row but this hasn 't worked and will not work. Laws are intended to correct, by definition laws can’t obey, or isn’t intended to imitate or reproduce that nature of man. (Bedau, Cassell) The law says we can 't follow or obey the nature of man that 's exactly what we 're doing by following through with Capital Punishment. The by putting people on death row and to kill them is exactly what they did was murder because you 're taking someone 's life. This should be the start in stopping the Death Penalty because it 's morally wrong just like murdering is but just because it 's run by the government and the justice system doesn’t make it okay!…

    • 2254 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays