Similarly, it is fair that one who has consciously taken the life of another person should suffer death. Susstein and Adrian Vermeule, the authors suggest that death penalty is morally justified on the basis of distinction between acts and omissions. Most opponents of death penalty argue that it is barbaric for a government to take a human life since there is a difference between an act, such as killing a person, and omission, such as refraining from the act.
But, researchers argue, by forbidding official penalty, government officials de facto allow numerous private killings that are left unpunished. Therefore, punishing the criminals is a necessary part of any state policy.
The interests of victims or potential victims of murders cannot be overlooked in order to consider the interests of the criminals guilty of the most heinous crime - taking a person's life. One of the most important arguments in favor of death penalty is the fact that it helps to deter capital crimes. This issue is debatable since there have been suggestions that application of death penalty has no serious effects on the rate of murders, for instance.
Besides, opponents of death penalty claim that it is not possible to deter so-called crimes-of-passion committed in an emotionally affected state when a person is not capable of thinking about future punishment. However, there is evidence that application of capital punishment can indeed prevent crimes, even those that are committed by intimates.
A study by Joanna M. To find this relationship, she looks at monthly murder and execution data using least squares and negative binomial estimations. Her conclusion is that one execution helps to avert three killings on average.
Capital punishment also has an effect on murders by intimates and crimes of passion. The influence is evidenced by rates of crimes committed by victims of both European and Afro-American descent. The deterring effect of death penalty, however, was found to be reduced by longer waits on the death row. The paper, in evaluating the deterrent effect of capital punishment, adjusts the data for the influence of simultaneity and therefore comes up with estimates of a deterrent effect that greatly those of previous findings.
Besides, he has established that it is the announcement of death penalty that drives the effect. The above-mentioned findings suggest that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is present and should not be neglected. If the killing of one criminal can prevent at least three, or fourteen deaths, by different calculations, this opportunity has to be exploited.
We cannot forgo an opportunity to save the lives of honest, innocent, law-abiding citizens. Although any human life is precious, the efforts of the society have always been directed mostly at maintaining the well-being of those who live by its rules. They are getting more economic benefits that anti-social elements and can enjoy a more secure future.
Thus, these people have to be protected by the law in the first place. Evidence of repeat offenders returning to normal life is scarce, and instances of recidivism are abundant.
Once again, the solution depends on the main goal set for the legal system: If we side with those who believe that the system should in the first place support those who are law-abiding, the focus will be on prevention of deaths though murders as the greatest evil generated by crime. Despite the above-mentioned deterrent effect, we cannot effectively prevent crimes by first-time offenders. It is much easier to prevent those by repeat offenders.
One of the most outrageous instances supporting the above claim was the incident that happened in Alabama prison in Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, 25, an inmate who was serving life without parole for 3 murders was found guilty of killing a fellow inmate Recidivism.
The killer was finally sentenced to electrocution. However, if he had been sentenced to death right after the first murder, the other three could have been prevented. The life of an inmate who died at the hands of Peraita is no less valuable than his own. In fact, I strongly believe that it could have been more valuable: Maybe that person was not guilty of such a heinous crime as murder?
Unfortunately, there is too much evidence that certain individuals tend to commit murder while others are less prone to it. Death penalty would then free society from the return of such individuals.
Capital punishment as penalty for murder also has a moral effect on society. It signals to the criminals that murder is a serious crime the community feels strongly about. In fact, it creates the useful perception of human life as something so precious that taking it has no justification. Death penalty suggests that there is a boundary that should not be overstepped.
This should send a message to society members that taking a person's property, however reprehensible, is not to be condemned via taking a life. On the contrary, murder will not be tolerated, and people who have committed this crime should be removed from society as incapable of social living.
Another common argument given in favour of death penalty is an economical consideration. Comparisons differ depending on the bias of the people carrying out the comparison. There are currently thirty-six states, including Kansas, which allow capital punishment. Others, like Illinois, have slowed or temporarily discontinued the use of capital punishment because of innocent defendants.
Lastly, the death penalty encourages violence. In eighty percent of the United States, murder rates actually increase after executions take place.
California has the largest death row in the United States with approximately inmates. Executions lead to a brutalization effect, a climate of violence and killing to avenge grievances.
It is only revenge, which does no good for anyone. The death penalty is expensive, it is not a deterrent, it is actually a crime because it is murder, and it encourages violence. Therefore, the death penalty should be illegal.
If you do drugs, you die. If you drink, you die. What does it matter, if in the end we all die anyway? Which of your works would you like to tell your friends about? These links will automatically appear in your email. If you have a suggestion about this website or are experiencing a problem with it, or if you need to report abuse on the site, please let us know. We try to make TeenInk. Please note that while we value your input, we cannot respond to every message.
Also, if you have a comment about a particular piece of work on this website, please go to the page where that work is displayed and post a comment on it. Don't have an account? Sign up for one. Wrong email address or password! It removes the burden from taxpayers. We all live in a society with the same basic rights and guarantees.
We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with equal opportunities. This is the basis for our society. It is the foundation on which everything else is built upon. When someone willfully and flagrantly attacks this foundation by murdering another, robbing them of all they are, and all they will ever be, then that person can no longer be a part of this society.
The only method that completely separates cold blooded murderers from our society is the death penalty. As the 20th century comes to a close, it is evident that our justice system is in need of reform. This reform will shape the future of our country, and we cannot jump to quick solutions such as the elimination of the death penalty.
As of now, the majority of American supports the death penalty as an effective solution of punishment. Why not execute them and save society the cost of their keep? However, it seems obvious to some Americans that the death penalty is a just and proper way to handle convicted murderers. Whatever henious crime one does,we are not uncivilised and barbaric to take the lives of others.
If we ought to give them death sentence as punishment,then what distinguishes us from the criminals? If insecurity is the major issue behind demanding capital punishment,then the best solution is framing the punishment in such a way that the culprit would never be a threat to the society,not hanging to death. The death penalty is funded by the taxes we pay to the government.
The title is Arguments against the Death Penalty yet the author spent the whole time counterclaiming any arguments brought up rather than explaining the logistics behind the arguments.
Persuasive Essay Why Capital Punishment Should Remain in Effect Stefanie Ridgway DeVry University, ENGL Professor Adams April 19, Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty, has been effective tool in our country’s justice system since its inception.
Against Capital Punishment Essay - Against Capital Punishment Currently in the United States, the death penalty is ruled constitutional. This is a mistake, and capital punishment should be unconstitutional.
The use of capital punishment greatly deters citizens from committing crimes such as murder. Many people’s greatest fear is death; therefore if they know that death is a possible consequence for their actions, they are less likely to perform such actions. The arguments against the death penalty often do not hold up when examined more. It is both cruel and costly. This is the least credible argument against capital punishment. The main cause of such inefficiencies is the appeals process, which allows capital cases to bounce back and forth between state and federal courts for years on end.
Persuasive Essay for Pro Capital Punishment; Persuasive Essay for Pro Capital Punishment. Words Jun 14th, 6 Pages. Persuasive Essay Why Capital Punishment Should Remain in Effect Stefanie Ridgway DeVry University, ENGL Persuasive Essay Against Capital Punishment “Kill. (Verb) To make someone or . Supreme Court Justice William Brennan says, “It is not denied that many, and probably most capital crimes cannot be deterred by the threat of punishment.” On average, states where capital punishment does seem to deter crime tend to execute many more people than in states where there seems to be no deterrent effect.