Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty
The death penalty is defined as a punishment of execution given to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. It is only administered to men and woman 18 years of age or older. In the US crimes deemed deserving of the death penalty include the following: treason, terrorism, espionage, federal murder, large scale drug trafficking, and attempting to kill a witness, juror, or a court officer. As you can see, the Death Penalty is only distributed to those of who commit large scale, inexcusable crimes and not to those who carry out small, pardonable offenses. Those who support the death penalty may argue that it dissuades other from committing the same crimes, while those against the death penalty might argue that it is inhumane or playing God.
…show more content…
However, I believe that the death penalty is a just action to take in order to sustain an orderly and law-abiding society.
Having the Death Penalty as a punishment for capital criminals can provide possible closure for the families of victims. Many victims spawn from a single crime. An example of a case in which closure for a victim is provided was in June 25, 2008 when Petitioner Patrick Kennedy was convicted and sentenced to death in Louisiana for the rape of his 8 year-old stepdaughter (Kennedy v. Louisiana US Supreme Court, 554 U.S. June 25, 2008). Though the sentence didn’t provide complete closure for the victim’s families, it did provide a resolution in knowing justice has been served. Another example of a case in which a sense of resolution is reached was in June 29, 1977 when Erlich Anthony Coker, while serving sentences for murder, rape, kidnapping, and assault, escaped from a Georgia jail. He later broke into a house, raped and kidnapped the resident woman and took her car. Eventually, he was caught and sentenced to death (Coker v. Georgia, US Supreme Court, 433 …show more content…
U.S. 584 June 29, 1977). Committing crimes such as these are inexcusable and do not only harm the victim, but also the families left to grieve over the loss of their loved one. There may never be closure for the mourning families, however, they can rest assured knowing the person who took away their loved one will no longer be able to harm anybody else. Along with the fact that the Death Penalty provides closure it also prevents more heinous crimes from happening in the future. This theory is explained on January 24, 1989 when Ted Bundy, a serial rapist and killer, was executed via the electric chair. Before his death, he repeatedly tried for a life sentence instead of the Death Penalty proving he feared and regretted his actions. His case provides more than enough reason for future criminals to reconsider and stop their actions before they can cause any real harm.
Some may argue that the death penalty is hypocritical, inhumane, or negatively exalts our humanity by placing ourselves higher than we deserve to be.
Those who argue its hypocrisy might say murder is not the answer to ending murder, however, the act of murder does in fact end things for better or for worse. It is up to our justice system to make sure it ends things for the better. The argument of the inhumanity can be rebutted by the fact that there are other methods besides the commonly thought of electric chair. In fact, even the electric chair is not as painful as one might think, because the electricity shuts off the brain faster than it can register the pain of the chair’s effects. Therefore, the way criminals are executed is not always inhumane and even less painful in today’s age. The argument that this act negatively exalts our humanity by allowing us to play God with other humans is simply a fallacy. Those of whom carry out the death penalty have normal psychological characteristics and do not, in fact, enjoy watching others suffer, because if they did, they would be in the same position as the people they’re trying to
stop.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that the death penalty helps sustain a law-abiding society and should be kept for the greater good of all citizens. A society without order can in no way be a prosperous one and must be built on some root that keeps the order. If there wasn’t a common thing to hold our community together, we would live in absolute anarchy. In an anarchical society, there is no penalty to ensure the safety of you, your friends, family, or anybody else who will be vulnerable to those who aren’t stopped.
However, I believe that the death penalty is a just action to take in order to sustain an orderly and law-abiding society.
Having the Death Penalty as a punishment for capital criminals can provide possible closure for the families of victims. Many victims spawn from a single crime. An example of a case in which closure for a victim is provided was in June 25, 2008 when Petitioner Patrick Kennedy was convicted and sentenced to death in Louisiana for the rape of his 8 year-old stepdaughter (Kennedy v. Louisiana US Supreme Court, 554 U.S. June 25, 2008). Though the sentence didn’t provide complete closure for the victim’s families, it did provide a resolution in knowing justice has been served. Another example of a case in which a sense of resolution is reached was in June 29, 1977 when Erlich Anthony Coker, while serving sentences for murder, rape, kidnapping, and assault, escaped from a Georgia jail. He later broke into a house, raped and kidnapped the resident woman and took her car. Eventually, he was caught and sentenced to death (Coker v. Georgia, US Supreme Court, 433 …show more content…
U.S. 584 June 29, 1977). Committing crimes such as these are inexcusable and do not only harm the victim, but also the families left to grieve over the loss of their loved one. There may never be closure for the mourning families, however, they can rest assured knowing the person who took away their loved one will no longer be able to harm anybody else. Along with the fact that the Death Penalty provides closure it also prevents more heinous crimes from happening in the future. This theory is explained on January 24, 1989 when Ted Bundy, a serial rapist and killer, was executed via the electric chair. Before his death, he repeatedly tried for a life sentence instead of the Death Penalty proving he feared and regretted his actions. His case provides more than enough reason for future criminals to reconsider and stop their actions before they can cause any real harm.
Some may argue that the death penalty is hypocritical, inhumane, or negatively exalts our humanity by placing ourselves higher than we deserve to be.
Those who argue its hypocrisy might say murder is not the answer to ending murder, however, the act of murder does in fact end things for better or for worse. It is up to our justice system to make sure it ends things for the better. The argument of the inhumanity can be rebutted by the fact that there are other methods besides the commonly thought of electric chair. In fact, even the electric chair is not as painful as one might think, because the electricity shuts off the brain faster than it can register the pain of the chair’s effects. Therefore, the way criminals are executed is not always inhumane and even less painful in today’s age. The argument that this act negatively exalts our humanity by allowing us to play God with other humans is simply a fallacy. Those of whom carry out the death penalty have normal psychological characteristics and do not, in fact, enjoy watching others suffer, because if they did, they would be in the same position as the people they’re trying to
stop.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that the death penalty helps sustain a law-abiding society and should be kept for the greater good of all citizens. A society without order can in no way be a prosperous one and must be built on some root that keeps the order. If there wasn’t a common thing to hold our community together, we would live in absolute anarchy. In an anarchical society, there is no penalty to ensure the safety of you, your friends, family, or anybody else who will be vulnerable to those who aren’t stopped.