The Negative Effects Of Capital Punishment On Family And Society

1473 Words 6 Pages
Capital punishment, commonly referred to as the death penalty, has been used 1,483 times since 1976, as a punishment for some of America 's most violent criminals. This form of punishment should be abolished for 3 reasons; It does not seem to have any effect on crime rates, It has negative effects on families, society, & the individual, and it is morally and logically inconsistent.

Starting off, the death penalty is not necessary because it has no effect on the deterrence of crime. First we can see that the death penalty is ineffective in lowering murder rates. "88% of the country 's top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide."(Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology). Supporters of the death penalty
…show more content…
Capital punishment has a negative effect on the families of the criminal. A trial is already a long, devastating, and stressful experience and there is no need to add death into the equation. Supporters may argue that it is the fault of the criminal that the family is having to go through this. This is true about the sentencing, but with the ever-growing evidence of capital punishment not having much of a positive purpose, it is the systems fault for the family having to endure the death of their loved one. When a family finds out what their relative has done, and then finds out they will have to be killed for it, grief and pain has the potential to divide families and even traumatize some. The impending doom and dread experienced by families in wait of an execution date is heartbreaking. Nobody should have to endure such a thing when there are more effective and ethical forms of punishment that could be used. Capital punishment has negative effects on society. The death penalty sends a message to citizens; a message that says murder is not okay, unless the state is doing it as a sanction. When it is implied that murder is okay under the circumstance of punishment then we are telling people it is okay to put one human life in a position of being less valuable than another, and one human life as being in a position of massively higher power. This leaves an almost open air of what is …show more content…
It is morally inconsistent because, according to the state, murder is deplorable and requires punishment. Any exception to this rule of murder being wrong, may cause the idea itself to become blurred or insignificant. Murder is normalized by the government, but not completely. Murder seems to not be so awful of an act when it is done by the hands of those with authority unto those of criminal background but it is viewed very negatively when done by the hands of an average citizen unto the average citizen. People have surrendered themselves to a government that believes violence is the best way to solve its problems. Capital punishment being a way of violence that does not coincide with the moral message of murder being wrong; a message the government wants to reach the people. Capital punishment is also logically inconsistent for similar reasons. If murder is considered "wrong" then of course, it should be this way on all counts. Since murder is practiced on an institutional level it can be assumed that murder, across the board, is not considered wrong. If murder, across the board, is not considered wrong, then it makes no sense to punish someone so greatly for doing it. It Is paradoxical. Although murder can be viewed on a scale; (Some murder is accidental, some more violent than others, and some considered to be "worse" than others) It is difficult to understand how a certain form of murder is viewed

Related Documents

Related Topics