The Death Penalty laws were first mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi, dating back to 1700 BC. Numerous different empires and countries used the death penalty for consequences of crime. Although many countries began to abolish the death penalty, the United States did not. During the colonial era is when the United States first began using Capital Punishment. In the early 16th century in the Jamestown, Virginia Captain George Kendall was hanged for the capital offense of treason. There were also many other crimes that would lead to the death penalty such a murder, rape and witchcraft. In the late 1600’s William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania limited the death penalty only to murder and treason. The beginning of the 1700’s is when the idea
…show more content…
Even though many countries abolished the death penalty from their law, there is still quite a few that still practices the act of killing a person convicted of a crime. People have numerous different opinions relating to the issue of the death penalty that is given to a convict. While some may think that the death penalty is necessary for those who have committed a terrible crime, there are others who consider it as an immoral act that goes against the values of humanity. According to the author William Wood, in his text “Capital Punishment/Death Penalty,” there are generally two arguments that suggest capital punishment is an effective way to save lives and deter numerous crimes. Also, it plays a major role in giving justice to victims. The first argument is “The Deterrence Effect,” which is based on the idea that the use of capital punishment is an operational method to reduce the rate of serious crimes. There are four justifications for the depravation of liberty; incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution and last but not least, deterrence. There can be two forms of deterrence, …show more content…
Another pro of the death penalty stated in Wood’s text is “ A Deserved Punishment.” During the 1980’s many people were changing the reason why they agreed to the death penalty. Ten years later in the 1990’s Americans deemed the death penalty as something that was deserved. The idea or whether or not it had a deterrent effect on others wasn’t important anymore. Retribution became the main focus, which was the idea that capital punishment was a way to save more lives. The primary objective of retribution was, “not revenge but rather a return of the net balance of justice that has been upended through crime.” Capital Punishment was considered morally right because Americans believed in the eye for an eye concept. Proponents of the death penalty agree that it is an important tool to preserve law and order, to deter crime, and even to lessen the cost rather than life imprisonment. They claim that retribution is a way to show integrity to the victim, to help console-grieving families, and to ensure that the perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause any future tragedy. On the other hand,
Even though many countries abolished the death penalty from their law, there is still quite a few that still practices the act of killing a person convicted of a crime. People have numerous different opinions relating to the issue of the death penalty that is given to a convict. While some may think that the death penalty is necessary for those who have committed a terrible crime, there are others who consider it as an immoral act that goes against the values of humanity. According to the author William Wood, in his text “Capital Punishment/Death Penalty,” there are generally two arguments that suggest capital punishment is an effective way to save lives and deter numerous crimes. Also, it plays a major role in giving justice to victims. The first argument is “The Deterrence Effect,” which is based on the idea that the use of capital punishment is an operational method to reduce the rate of serious crimes. There are four justifications for the depravation of liberty; incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution and last but not least, deterrence. There can be two forms of deterrence, …show more content…
Another pro of the death penalty stated in Wood’s text is “ A Deserved Punishment.” During the 1980’s many people were changing the reason why they agreed to the death penalty. Ten years later in the 1990’s Americans deemed the death penalty as something that was deserved. The idea or whether or not it had a deterrent effect on others wasn’t important anymore. Retribution became the main focus, which was the idea that capital punishment was a way to save more lives. The primary objective of retribution was, “not revenge but rather a return of the net balance of justice that has been upended through crime.” Capital Punishment was considered morally right because Americans believed in the eye for an eye concept. Proponents of the death penalty agree that it is an important tool to preserve law and order, to deter crime, and even to lessen the cost rather than life imprisonment. They claim that retribution is a way to show integrity to the victim, to help console-grieving families, and to ensure that the perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause any future tragedy. On the other hand,