In the United States there are several topics that are considered morally ambiguous. Among these contended topics is the death penalty. There are many arguments for and against capital punishment. One proponent for the death penalty is Ernest van den Haag who in his article, “The Ultimate Punishment,” argues a case for the death penalty. I believe he successfully counters the arguments against the death penalty leading me to believe it is not something that should be viewed as inhumane and wrong. I will argue that the death penalty is not morally ambiguous but a justified sentence some deserve. Van den Haag believes that in upholding a death sentence, potential murderers are being deterred, victims protected, and justice served. Many may
…show more content…
Those opposed to the death penalty use this as one of their reasons to do away with it. Because it is so finite, a wrongful conviction with capital punishment is not something that can be rectified. Death is final, there is no reversing it. Just because the death penalty is a possible punishment, though, does not mean it is the answer to every sentencing. It also does not mean it is something that is carried out immediately. Inmates sentenced to death sit on death row for years before actually being executed. This time allows for appeals which may end up clearing the name of the convicted. Since it is nearly impossible to be 100% sure that the correct person is apprehended and tried for a crime, the death penalty should not be handed out lightly. This does not mean it should not exist at all, though. With technology constantly changing and advancing, the risk of making a fatal error in these cases becomes less and less …show more content…
Once someone is convicted and sentenced to death, they are not immediately killed in the most cost effective way. The manner in which they file for appeals could cause them to live for several more years. The cost of them living coupled with the cost of the appeals and the medical care that is required to be given to them could be pretty pricey. The cost of a life sentence is also expensive but not to the extent of a death row inmate. However, with a death sentence victims of the family may feel more of a sense of justice. Murderers with a life sentence have a lot more privileges than those with a death sentence. A convict with a life sentence is also able to corrupt and influence fellow inmates as well as any followers they have in society who are not incarcerated. A perfect example of this is Charles Manson. Even from prison he still has a lot of reach and has hundreds of people willing to do his bidding for him. Death row inmates are separated from the rest of the general population in prison. This means that nonviolent offenders are not at risk of being harmed or influenced by murderers on death row. Nonviolent offenders, like a car thief, and people facing life sentences are all thrown in together. This means a teenager tried as an adult could be stuck in a cell with a subhuman being with violent tendencies. The likelihood of this is reduced with the death
Those opposed to the death penalty use this as one of their reasons to do away with it. Because it is so finite, a wrongful conviction with capital punishment is not something that can be rectified. Death is final, there is no reversing it. Just because the death penalty is a possible punishment, though, does not mean it is the answer to every sentencing. It also does not mean it is something that is carried out immediately. Inmates sentenced to death sit on death row for years before actually being executed. This time allows for appeals which may end up clearing the name of the convicted. Since it is nearly impossible to be 100% sure that the correct person is apprehended and tried for a crime, the death penalty should not be handed out lightly. This does not mean it should not exist at all, though. With technology constantly changing and advancing, the risk of making a fatal error in these cases becomes less and less …show more content…
Once someone is convicted and sentenced to death, they are not immediately killed in the most cost effective way. The manner in which they file for appeals could cause them to live for several more years. The cost of them living coupled with the cost of the appeals and the medical care that is required to be given to them could be pretty pricey. The cost of a life sentence is also expensive but not to the extent of a death row inmate. However, with a death sentence victims of the family may feel more of a sense of justice. Murderers with a life sentence have a lot more privileges than those with a death sentence. A convict with a life sentence is also able to corrupt and influence fellow inmates as well as any followers they have in society who are not incarcerated. A perfect example of this is Charles Manson. Even from prison he still has a lot of reach and has hundreds of people willing to do his bidding for him. Death row inmates are separated from the rest of the general population in prison. This means that nonviolent offenders are not at risk of being harmed or influenced by murderers on death row. Nonviolent offenders, like a car thief, and people facing life sentences are all thrown in together. This means a teenager tried as an adult could be stuck in a cell with a subhuman being with violent tendencies. The likelihood of this is reduced with the death