Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are two prominent organisations fighting against death penalty. The issues involved in the discussion of death penalty usually focus around two main parts. First, this punishment is analysed from a purely utilitarian perspective in an effort to find out whether application of capital punishment really helps to deter crime and reduce the risk of recidivism, when criminals commit repeated crimes.
The evidence for this is sought in crime rates in regions and nations where executions are carried out. Second, supporters or opponents of death penalty need to find out whether this penalty can be acknowledged on moral grounds, solving the problem of whether human beings are justified in killing other human beings. Although the arguments stated remain basically the same throughout history of the discussion, evidence can vary, and the findings, although controversial, can tilt the public opinion to one or the other side.
Thus, the support for death penalty surges in nations where especially outrageous murders take place. On the contrary, a lower criminal rate reduces the support. Death penalty, in my view, has to be supported on the ground of just retribution for murder. Still, I do not believe in death as a form of punishment for drug dealers, however heinous their activities might be, since they did not violate human lives.
Political crimes should not be punished with death either, as this would open the way to political repression and physical elimination of political rivals, as it happened in Stalin's times in the Soviet Union.
However, when a person murders another person, death is the right kind of retribution. This is analogous to penalties imposed for instance for robbery or theft - the criminal often has to forfeit one's possessions for taking the property of another person.
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. Many people that argue this overestimate how often this happens, it is an extremely rare occurrence and has not happened since the death penalty was reintroduced in Mistakes will be made in any system which relies upon human testimony for proof.
We should be vigilant to uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. Stewart points out that death penalty cases are held to a much higher standard. Due process in these cases takes much longer so that the court can be absolutely sure that the person is guilty before sentencing him to execution. This helps to eliminate any errors that could lead to executing the wrong person. He also points out that although there is a small possibility for mistakes to be made, this does not mean capital punishment should be abolished.
If everything that had the potential for harmful mistakes were outlawed, society would be extremely crippled. It is true that there is disproportionality when it comes to the races and classes that most frequently receive the death penalty.
It has been proven that minorities and those with lower income levels are overrepresented on death row. This is not due to discrimination; this is due to the higher rate at which these groups commit crime ProCon. It has been argued that poverty breeds criminality; if this is true then it makes sense that those at a lower income level would more frequently be sentenced to execution than those at higher income levels ProCon. It has also been proven that minorities are disproportionately poor, and therefore they would also be more likely to receive the death penalty.
Ernest van den Haag said it best:. The only relevant question is: Whether or not others deserved the same punishment, whatever the economic or racial group, have avoided execution is irrelevant. It does not matter what race or economic status a person is, if he is guilty he must receive the appropriate punishment, which in some cases may be the death penalty. Capital punishment can be a difficult topic to approach because people tend to have extreme views on it. The death penalty is an asset to society; it deters potential criminals as well as serves retribution to criminals, and is in no way immoral.
The arguments against the death penalty often do not hold up when examined more closely. It is important that the nation is united on this issue, rather than having some states use capital punishment while others do not. The death penalty can be an extremely useful tool in sentencing criminals that have committed some of the worst crimes known to society.
It is imperative that we begin to pass legislation making capital punishment legal throughout the United States so that justice can be served properly. The Case for Justice. Death Penalty Curricula for High School. Death Penalty Information Center. This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 24th, at 5: You can follow any comments to this entry through the RSS 2. You can leave a comment , or trackback from your own site. You must be logged in to post a comment.
Ernest van den Haag, a professor at Fordham University, wrote about the issue of deterrence: Ernest van den Haag said it best: Works Cited Bosner, Kevin. July 10, at 9: March 23, at March 1, at 9: January 5, at 6: December 1, at 1: December 1, at October 18, at Score Hero Hack Download. More than death row inmates have been exonerated since It is immoral to have someone commit murder in order to carry out the death penalty.
After all, the executioner is murdering the inmate. The death penalty is motivated by the need for revenge, which is not necessarily justice. Everyone deserves the right to life and that means an attempt to rehabilitate rather than kill, must be made, even in extreme cases. Second Claim Starting Sentence Option 1: Third Claim Starting Sentence Option 1: Conclusion Starting Sentence Option 1: References Use citation generating tools, such as EasyBib.
To enjoy the full writing experience with advanced features continue writing on WriteWellapp. Argumentative Essay - College. Argumentative Essay - High School. You May Also Like. Argumentative Essay - Middle School.
An argumentative essay about death penalty. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. There is no harsher punishment than death itself.
English Task –Argumentative Essay The Death Penalty The argument of whether the death penalty is effective is an age-old and contentious issue. Many people believe that “an eye for an eye” mentality is barbaric and goes against basic human morals. Others are of the opinion that it .
The Death Penalty - The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. This assignment instructed students to write a persuasive essay which argues for a specific viewpoint or a specific action to be taken on a societal issue. I argued for a specific stance to be taken on the issue of the death penalty. The audience for this essay is the opinion section of the.
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. No side was taken in this essay however the title clearly states that the essay should be on arguments against. Death Penalty Essay Is the Death Penalty a Deterrent to Future Crimes? The most heinous of crimes are subject to the highest form of punishment – death penalty.