Is it right to kill a person? Is it sensible to teach a person not to kill by killing? What makes the prison guard who fires the shot or the doctor who inserts the lethal injection less of a murderer than the person whose life they just ended? What makes the judge and jury who just sentenced that person to death row any better than the man who convinced someone else to kill his wife? What constitutes killing a person? When is it moral? Is it ever moral?
The plain, black-and-white truth is that: no, it is never moral to kill a person. With this statement, it can be said that the people sentenced to the capital punishment (being that they are in fact people) should be spared on the grounds of morality.
Revenge means: "to seek or take vengeance for oneself or another person" (). Revenge is what is behind the death penalty. The death penalty has nothing to do with justice, morals, what is right, nor what is wrong. This type of death sentence is one that is executed in order to make the families of those wronged feel better. While it is not wrong to want justice, it is wrong to seek revenge. Revenge is a never-ending circle, it is train that never stops running, it is a screaming infant that can never be quieted, and it is a bloodthirsty tiger that can never be sated. "The need for revenge, for vengeance, is being curbed, the appetite is no longer there," argues Robert Hirschorn, a nationally known Texas attorney and jury consultant.
If a crime is so heinous that death is even considered as a punishment, it would only make sense that the offender should not be allowed to take the easier punishment. Once a person dies, life is over. After death there is no lesson to be learned. Death is the end of the road. In his essay "The Penalty of Death", Mencken states "All of us long for a swift and unexpected end" (Mencken 472). Much worse than dying is sitting in a jail cell and contemplating what was done. Life without parole means life without ever being able to walk outside the jail and live amongst free people. Freedom is a curios idea. It can drive people to fight inspiring and epic battles but it could also cause them to go insane. Wanting freedom when it is unattainable is the worst punishment that can be put on a person.
It is true that keeping these committers of crime in jail can cost taxpayers millions of dollars; it is also true that each capital punishment case costs at least $2 million. Many of the defendants are also denied adequate legal representation at their trials, race sometimes plays a major role in deciding who is sentenced to death and for what crimes. Juries are also "death qualified" which means that jurors with moral objections to the death penalty are removed from the panel. Judges and juries are also too quick to sentence innocent people to death as the recent clutter of DNA exonerations has shown. People think too often with their emotions and not often enough with their logic and reason, how can an emotional person be trusted to decide on the life of another?
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Moral judgment is a difficult thing; so many people can disagree because there is no right or wrong answer. This topic has been a big debate for a while each state has adopted their own way of doing things. The death penalty is illegal in 16 states. The death penalty is usually used for murder but there has been other case such as aggravated rape but most of the time they get a life sentence for crimes other than murder. In cases of serious crimes you always don’t get the death penalty sometimes you get hard time to a life sentence which can be hard on a person because of the many flaws of the prison system.…
- 480 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Is killing ever justified? Yes, killing is justified in certain situations. An example would be if a burglar comes into someone's house. The first thing they do is grab a gun or knife and use self defense. Some people will say no they should be punished people should not kill anyone under any conflict. Then, some people say just the opposite. Another example would be during a person's life time they can experience very painful illnesses. People should have the rights where they can die when they want only, if they are in a very painful stage of an illness or injury.…
- 499 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Hundreds of Americans are wrongfully sent to death row. This means that hundreds of people die innocently. Killing people for killing others is wrong in any situation. Though some people say when murder is punished with death, less people will commit the crime, murdering is uncivil, especially when the person is wrongfully accused.…
- 669 Words
- 3 Pages
Better Essays -
Retribution is the theory that the mandate to pay an offender back for his or her wrongdoing (pg. 6 Cullen). Conservatives lean in favor of this approach while liberals favor what is called “just deserts.” The difference between the two is that retribution is has the goal of ensuring that the offender endures the pain they have caused. Just desert want the offender to suffer no more than the pain caused. They wish to see that justice is served but not more than that which is truly deserved. One punishment that is considered retribution rather than rehabilitative is the death penalty. The argument that this punishment is more retribution is that the offender should suffer the same harm to which his or her inflicted on the victim. They see the…
- 273 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
There is always question about whether or not it is constitutional to give someone the sentence or death row. Is sentencing someone to death moral? Could that be considered a sin? People sometimes think about that when deciding to give capital punishment. Conservatives have had strong views on crime. The criminals are becoming more violent and less trustworthy. Therefore, they deserve what they get (Armstrong Williams). Liberals believe that criminals only do what is expected of them, but everybody has a choice on what they want to do. The death penalty has a purpose. Well everything the government does has some intentional purpose whether it turns out good or bad. The purpose though is to maintain social order. Now, what they try to say that the death penalty is affected by prejudice and most of the people put on death row are African Americans. That might be true but if you want to get rid of it for that reason then you would have to decrease or get rid of the amount of time in prison. The question of morality isn’t based off whether or not someone’s decision was made because of their prejudice towards someone. The question is whether it is actively legal for the state to take another person’s life. Some try to say that it is a violation of the sanctity of life when giving some one the death penalty through “legal” injection but people violates life’s sanctity by going out and committing capital crimes even though…
- 701 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Although the death penalty pushes discipline and severe consequences for the crimes that have been committed, life in prison is more humane and less expensive. Many victims feel that the death penalty can give them closure, knowing that the culprit is dead. When we convict someone of a crime, it is not right to kill them. Prison could change them. If you do not use the death penalty, their families could still visit and maintain a relationship with them.…
- 424 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Is it morally right to deliberately take the life of any person, even a person who has killed another?…
- 1681 Words
- 7 Pages
Better Essays -
The most severe form of punishment of all legal sentences is that of death. This is referred to as the death penalty, or capital punishment; this is the most severe form of corporal punishment, requiring law enforcement officers to actually kill the offenders. It has been banned in numerous countries, in the United States, however an earlier move to eliminate capital punishment has now been reserved and more and more states are resorting to capital punishment for such serious offenders namely murder. "Lex talionis," mentioned by the Bible encourages "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" mentality, and people have been using it regularly for centuries. We use it in reference to burglary, adultery, and various other situations, although, some people enforce it on a different level, some people use it in reference to death. An individual may steal from those who have stolen from him, or an individual wrongs those who have wronged him, but should an individual have the right to kill to seek retaliation? Four issues are on the hot topic in the United States, stirring up America's feeling towards this issue. There is controversy debating capital punishment today and whether or not it works, or if it is morally right. We have a certain privilege in our own lives, but should the lives of others belong to us as well? Do we have the right to decide on the lives of others; of people we may not even know? If we find someone guilty of murder, we sentence him to death. This makes us murders ourselves, but is there possibility in justifying these acts? Those who assist in the death penalty; are they not partners in crime? Is death penalty a cruel and unusual punishment or is it now just a necessary tool in the war on crime?…
- 2731 Words
- 11 Pages
Better Essays -
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” otherwise known as the law of retaliation is the idea that when someone does something wrong to us we are allowed to retaliate in a similar degree to even the wrong done. The use of the death penalty in the United States as a form of legal punishment reflects this very concept. More frequent than not, when the death penalty is being sought within a criminal trial it is paired with a murder charge. This desire to inflict an essentially “even” punish for murder, effectively sentencing a person to death yourself because of the choice to take a life, reflects the very essence of the law of retaliation. While the law of retaliation has no limitations and in theory is something we may always put into practice, the death penalty is not such a thing and is instead a highly regulated form of punishment or “retaliation”.…
- 1807 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
In my perspective the death penalty does not reach the minds of most criminals because a criminal rarely believes he/she could be caught. They hold a belief that they are intelligent enough to outsmart authorities. There is other whom holds such anger towards certain crimes that they believe death is a rightful punishment, but death does not “undo” a crime they have committed. I think it would be better for a criminal to think and reminisce their conscious. Their death would only put peace in their state of mind and except them from the punishments that prison holds for them. Families harmed by these criminals are sometimes frightened by the thought that they’re persecutor could escape and harm them again, however someone sentenced to life in parole in the united states has never escaped or been released. There is also a possibility that an innocent person could be convicted of a crime they did not commit, even with all our new technology and DNA testing there is always a chance of making a…
- 560 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
I will be the first to admit that there are people in this world that has done some pretty terrible things. Maybe to themselves or to other people! Even though those people may have no remorse over the things they have done us as human beings have to be the ones to say when enough is enough. The history of the death penalty is a long and brutal one. From the stoning and crucifixion killings of the B.C. era to today’s methods of the electric chair and lethal injection, governments of one kind or another have sentenced people to death for thousands of years [CA Innocence Project, 2009]. It’s simply a disciplinary act that needs to be eliminated. Wouldn’t it be more efficient for Guilty people to sit in jail and live with what they have committed? To think about what they have done day in and day out, to have the world judge them and to know that family and friends has shunned them from their lives, because of the things that they have done in the past. They may not get over it today, maybe not even tomorrow but after a life time of sitting in the jail with nothing and no one, they are more than likely to “break down” and feel the guilt sooner or later. They would not be human if they didn’t, to have to grow old and sit in prison knowing that you won’t ever be able to leave or see sunlight ever again. Knowing that no one’s going to help you, and knowing that that is where you are going to die would be a terrible feeling.…
- 614 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Retribution is defined as,“ the punishment that satisfies the needs of both society and the victim”(Riolearn,2016). For example, a serial killer does not have the mental capability to be reintegrated into society. Therefore, re-introducing the serial killer into the world has a negative effect on citizens and threatens their safety. Retribution, in this case, would possibly be the death penalty because they would never have the chance to harm society and allow those affected to heal. Furthermore, those who impose the sentence gratify their needs for justice.…
- 856 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
In conclusion each of the above needs to be justified on their own merits. Killing someone as punishment for what they have done to you is not always right but, of these justified I guess each has to be assessed on its own merits but deep down I believe that life is very precious and should…
- 386 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Life without parole provides rapid, severe, and certain punishment. All judgement is not right, at times people’s judgments can be clouded or corrupt. For example, a judge could be more lenient with a defendant that only has charges of petty theft than against a defendant fighting against rape charge. The defendant could be innocent, but because he or she is charged with a more hated and heinous crime such as rape or murder, he or she could face bias or unfair punishment. Until the issue of discrimination in capital punishment is fixed the death penalty should be outlawed within the United States. Death row is the ultimate punishment for one’s immorality, therefore it is not right for those who are morally correct and innocent to be put to death just because of some peoples one-sided judgment. Instead of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars meaningless death, the american people should save to protect some of those essential services (such as education) that are now threatened with death from state budget cost. Life without parole could be a very effective alternative to capital punishment, that not only saves money, but also…
- 1055 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Starting off a bit morbid, 55 million people die every day. Some deaths are uncontrollable but some are homicides. In reading The Most Dangerous Game we as a class were asked whether or not it is considered okay to kill someone but like a ballot there were mixed results. This can branch out into many different topics ranging from abortion to downright murder. In my opinion, I think that killing is justified if you have a probable cause such as self defense, death penance, and abortion.…
- 294 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays