Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Death Penalty (C)
Death Penalty (C)
Death Penalty (C)
Question: Since the death penalty is the ultimate expression of state duty to protect lives, does a
government who does not enforce death penalty is an accomplice of murders itself?
Thesis Statement: Death sentence should be implemented in every country of the world.
Immanuel Kant said it best. He said a society that is not willing to demand a life of
somebody who has taken somebody else's life is simply immoral. So the question really... when
the system works and when you manage to identify somebody who has done such heinous evil,
do we as a society have a right to take his life? I think the answer's plainly yes. And I would go
with Kant and I would say it is immoral for us not to. (Kozinski, JD., 2009)
Executions should be banned by act of Congress for this simple reason: Experience has
shown that the death penalty doesn't serve the cause of justice. How likely is it, really, that a
killer will be more deterred by the risk of the death penalty than by having to spend the rest of
his life in prison? The claim fails the test of common sense. Criminologists and police chiefs say
the death penalty just doesn't influence murderers -- partly because its application is so
haphazard. It's true that the purpose of punishment is not only deterrence but also retribution. But
this doesn't justify the popular view that killers should be killed, any more than it would support
the idea that rapists should be raped or thieves stolen from. To be just, retribution must be
measured and restrained. That's the difference between justice and revenge. The extraordinary
crimes that would justify the death penalty are difficult to imagine, much less define, before the
fact. And, even in exceptional cases, the requirement to prove guilt beyond any doubt is hard to
satisfy. (What does ‘beyond any doubt’ actually mean? Is a psychopath guilty beyond any
doubt?) Let's allow that it would have been right to execute Hitler. But let's also recognize that
restricting the death penalty to the few cases where it would be both just and safe is impractical.
The best pragmatic course is not to use the death penalty more sparingly but to abolish it
outright. (Bloomberg, 2014)
Along with two-thirds of the American public, I believe in capital punishment. I believe
that there are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer
by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It
cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the
murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in
self defense to protect the innocent. (Steward, JD. 2017)
Capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendment because it is morally unacceptable to
the people of the United States at this time in their history. In judging whether or not a given
penalty is morally acceptable, most courts have said that the punishment is valid unless 'it shocks
the conscience and sense of justice of the people.' Assuming knowledge of all the facts presently
available regarding capital punishment, the average citizen would, in my opinion, find it
shocking to his conscience and sense of justice. For this reason alone, capital punishment cannot
stand. (Marshall, LLB. 2009)
Our federal and state constitutions are replete with rights we afford the accused -- the right
to notice of charges, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to confront witnesses, the
right to counsel, and the right against self-incrimination. We as a society have made a profound
commitment to avoid punishing the innocent. This is particularly important to those of us who
support the death penalty in appropriate circumstances. We have determined that there are
instances when the crimes are so egregious that society’s ultimate punishment -- the death
penalty -- may be appropriate. But the imposition of this punishment can be justified only if we
make full use of all available tools to aid in the determination of guilt or innocence. (Spitzer, JD.,
2009)
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception. The death
penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. (Amnesty International, 2017)
On certain empirical assumptions, capital punishment may be morally required, not for
retributive reasons, but rather to prevent the taking of innocent lives. In so saying, we are
suggesting the possibility that states are obliged to maintain the death penalty option. (Sunstein,
JD., 2009)
Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in
its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment;
therefore the principle inherent in the Clause that prohibits pointless infliction of excessive
punishment when less severe punishment can adequately achieve the same purposes invalidates
the punishment. (Brennan, Jr., JD, 2009)
According to Student Press Network Wayland, Since 1608, capital punishment has been
heavily debated. Capital punishment is when a person is sentenced to death by the state for a
particular crime. Ever since the death penalty was created, there has been controversy over
whether or not it should be continued. For many years, our government, as well as average
citizens, have questioned if the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits
the government from cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty should be continued to
increase the prevention of crimes and reduce the billions of tax dollars spent towards prisons.
Many people argue that that the death penalty completely goes against our Eighth
Amendment rights: with its inhuman ways of execution and its possible classification as “cruel”
and “unusual” punishments. However, without the death penalty, lots of citizen’s tax dollars
would go to waste clothing and feeding inmates in jail. Over the years, more and more tax
dollars are being put towards jails than other resources that can help a community.
Believe it or not, America’s prisons are costing taxpayers billions of dollars. According
to the well-known website, Money and Career Cheat Sheet, the Versa Institute of Justice
recorded a whopping 39 billion dollars being spent on prisons. These tax dollars go towards
health care, food and clothing for inmates; a fraction of the money also goes towards correction
officers.
The death penalty should be continued to also prevent an increase in crimes. Imagine
living in a world in which the only form of punishment was being locked in a cage like an
animal. Criminals would learn nothing from their mistakes and when released, who knows what
these unchanged people would do. Not everyone changes in prison, some just become worse.
Time Magazine reported an estimated amount of 2,000,000 citizens of the US who have fallen
victim to some form of crime from assault to murder. Without the death penalty, criminals would
become careless and fearless, and they would commit horrendous crimes. There is a need for the
death penalty to exist.
In conclusion, there are still multiple opinions regarding the death penalty. However, the
most beneficial one would be to continue the process of distributing the death penalty as a
punishment. When you put someone else in harm’s way, and ruin their lives, you deserve to be
treated with the same respect. The death penalty, although scary in the eyes of some citizens, is
beneficial to every citizen and increases the safety of our country every day.
References: