Death Penalty5
Imagine a man who commits murder, and is given a fifteen year jail sentence and is returned to the streets where he kills again. He is imprisoned again only to be released. This could happen since almost one in ten death row inmates has been convicted of murder at least once. That means that some death row inmates have had more than one opportunity to rehabilitate, yet continue to commit crimes. Should the U.S. justice system continue to let violent criminals back on the streets where they are likely to commit murder again? Capital punishment is one of the oldest forms of punishment. Most societies have thought it to be fair punishment for severe crimes. American colonists used capital punishment before the U.S. was a country, and most states still use it today. Currently, however, there has been a controversy surrounding the death penalty. Capital cases are long and expensive, and there are arguments in support and against capital punishment as a deterrent. If the laws concerning capital punishment were modified so that it would become consistent, perhaps then it would be effective. But if that took place, would capital punishment be morally permissible? From a utilitarian standpoint, some crimes are so outrageous,
"Does fining a criminal show want of respect for poverty, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show on the contrary...our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall" (Siegel, 66). Mu'Min's example shows that putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. Those are things that cause life imprisonment to weather away. As long as the murderer lives, there is always a chance that he/she will strike again. This is the reason for people who value public safety that there is no substitute for the best in its defense which is capital punishment. It forever bars a murderer from killing again. oldberg, Stephanie. "South Africa." New York Times 5th of March 1997: 103. In conclusion, every country in the world is ready to kill millions in order to defend their nation from the aggression of others. It is difficult to see why public safety doesn't deserve the same respect as national security. Perhaps, supporting armies and war is far more barbarous than the death penalty. One reason nations exist is to defend citizens from criminals. When they fail to do that, they fail their citizens. When a society ignores its moral duty to defend the safety of its citizens they are leaving them at the mercy of criminals. If capital punishment can guarantee the safety of the citizens the best, and it thus benefits society, then from a utilitarian standpoint it is morally permissible. John Mill states: Abolitionists claim that there are alternatives to the death penalty. They state that life in prison without parole serves just as well. However, in ord
Some common words found in the essay are:
Dawned Mu'Min, , AIDS AIDS, John Mill, York Times, capital punishment, University Press, death penalty, york times, moral aspects, human life, America York, York Oxford, Death Peanlty, Peanlty America, death row inmates, safety citizens, 56 executions, violent criminals, stephanie south, africa york, siegel adam death, 5th march 1997, 103 siegel adam, march 1997 103,
Approximate Word count = 1303
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
