Why Is The Death Penalty Morally Wrong

Improved Essays
If a judge yelled “Guilty, for a crime you didn’t commit!.”, that would be extremely shocking right? Killing anyone for any reason is terrible by all means, especially if the person being killed is possibly innocent. The death penalty should be illegal because it is morally wrong, someone could be falsely accused, and killing someone should be considered "cruel" under the Constitution.
Many of history’s most decorated men have been in favor of having the death penalty abolished. In an Apr. 9, 2007 website section titled "The Death Penalty: Questions and Answers," the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) offered the following: "It [capital punishment] is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice [...] No one deserves to
…show more content…
Courts don’t put anymore time into cases when the defendant is no longer alive. But there are more than a few examples of people who have been executed, but most likely innocent. Carlos DeLuna was killed for the stabbing of Wanda Lopez in 1983, but new evidence found by reporters casts doubt on DeLuna’s guilt and points towards Carlos Hernandez, who had a record of similar offenses. Ruben Cantu had told of his innocence and was just 17 when he was charged with capital murder for the shooting of a man in San Antonio during an attempted robbery. Now, the prosecutor and the jury forewoman have expressed doubts about the case. The key eyewitness in the case had said Cantu was innocent and only said he saw him in the shooting was because he felt pressured by the police to do so("Executed But Possibly Innocent," Sec. 2-3). The act of killing someone is not only wrong, but it could result in the wrong killing of …show more content…
In 1972, the supreme court attempted to settle the debate. They struck down all existing death penalty laws in a 5-4 vote saying that the states were handling them in a “freakish and wanton” manner and thus was unconstitutional. The death penalty was banned until states could fix their laws and established 4 principals to determine whether the death penalty was unconstitutional. In the span of nearly 4 years, the majority of states(35/50) corrected their state laws. So the Supreme Court revoted and the death penalty was reinstated in a 2-7 vote. But 3 of the judges that voted that the death penalty was not cruel and unusual punishment changed their minds later in life after their time as Supreme Court judges. Had they voted back then what they believe now, the death penalty would continue to be illegal. Due to the nature of the ruling, the death penalty is not illegal under the law, but the Supreme Court believes it should be. There is no other group of people more capable of judging this law than the Supreme

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    however, many of these same places condone the death penalty for those criminals who have committed horrendous acts. Although it seems to be universally true that murder is wrong, there are societies that view the death penalty as being an acceptable form of murder. The question then arises whether killing in certain cases can be justified. Those in favor of the death penalty commonly turn to anger as being a justifiable reason to the death penalty while those opposed to capital punishment hold strong…

    • 1617 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    concludes that “the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it” (Vaughn). To elaborate, the theory of cultural relativism is a response to the question “What is morally right?” The premise being every culture has different values, and the conclusion being therefore an action is morally right if one of said culture’s approves of it. For example, suppose Bob and John are discussing if gun control is ethical. Bob asserts that gun control is morally right. John asks, what led you to…

    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    shows logical explanation about the death penalty. Using Kant’s theory it shows under what case and conditions that death penalty can be morally acceptable. However, utilitarianism sees death penalty as morally unacceptable because it will not provide a greater happiness to everyone. For Kant, death penalty will prevent crimes to happen in the society while utilitarianism perceives it was ethically wrong to kill someone whatever he/she have done. Although death penalty can help to create a better society…

    • 221 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays