Why the Death Penalty is Infallibly Superfluous
Many philosophers endorse the death penalty since it “serves as justice” when a serious crime is committed. Many retributivist and consequentialist believe that wrongdoers should be subjected to the death penalty if they commit crimes of the highest degree such as murder, terrorism, etc. Many Philosophers also believe that the death penalty can deter and prevent However, this belief is deeply flawed, as the death penalty fails not only philosophically, but also statistically. The death penalty is not only unnecessary, but also immoral being that it de-humanizes people with an extreme degree, does not generate enough intrinsic value to succeed that of life imprisonment, and does not deter, or prevent horrendous crimes.
The death penalty fails philosophically in the sense that it breaks the paramount human right; the right to …show more content…
Second, incapacitation is a quite niggardly argument to promote support of the death penalty considering that life in prison also incapacitates the criminal, and still manages to preserve the life of the human. Third, prevention is also a weak argument in support of capital punishment, seeing that a person who has enough reasoning capacity to determine that death as a punishment is unwanted, could also determine that life imprisonment as a punishment is also unwanted. For instance, professor Zaibert of Union College states that “if speeding was punishable by death, no one would break the speed limit” (Zaibert, Union College) This same example can be used for life imprisonment. If speeding was punishable by life imprisonment, no one would break the speed limit. In addition, various philosophers believe that the death penalty has an incitement effect, which completely refutes the claim of support for
Many philosophers endorse the death penalty since it “serves as justice” when a serious crime is committed. Many retributivist and consequentialist believe that wrongdoers should be subjected to the death penalty if they commit crimes of the highest degree such as murder, terrorism, etc. Many Philosophers also believe that the death penalty can deter and prevent However, this belief is deeply flawed, as the death penalty fails not only philosophically, but also statistically. The death penalty is not only unnecessary, but also immoral being that it de-humanizes people with an extreme degree, does not generate enough intrinsic value to succeed that of life imprisonment, and does not deter, or prevent horrendous crimes.
The death penalty fails philosophically in the sense that it breaks the paramount human right; the right to …show more content…
Second, incapacitation is a quite niggardly argument to promote support of the death penalty considering that life in prison also incapacitates the criminal, and still manages to preserve the life of the human. Third, prevention is also a weak argument in support of capital punishment, seeing that a person who has enough reasoning capacity to determine that death as a punishment is unwanted, could also determine that life imprisonment as a punishment is also unwanted. For instance, professor Zaibert of Union College states that “if speeding was punishable by death, no one would break the speed limit” (Zaibert, Union College) This same example can be used for life imprisonment. If speeding was punishable by life imprisonment, no one would break the speed limit. In addition, various philosophers believe that the death penalty has an incitement effect, which completely refutes the claim of support for