Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
To my mind, the relevant issue is that many countries impose much more barbaric sanctions, such as cutting off limbs, stoning, and other brutal forms of cruel capital punishment. I would regard humane capital punishment as morally preferable, particularly in conjunction with the U.S. constitutional protections.
I would strongly disagree with the author's position that the death penalty is no longer (especially in 1985) routinely imposed in error, as well as with the author's position that the death penalty is no longer imposed in a discriminatory manner. Specifically, since this essay was written, the field of DNA science has demonstrated time and again that there is a definite risk of wrongful imposition and that is, perhaps, the strongest of all possible objections, especially given the profound importance of the presumption of innocence in this country. Similarly, while overt racial and social discrimination are no longer tolerated within the criminal justice system, the author ignores the fact that poor and...
In that sense, the criminal justice system is still discriminatory in its effects if not in its design or intent.
I would agree with the author that capital punishment does not necessarily cheapen human life provided it is imposed and implemented ethically in relation to the other issues, and that that biblical prohibitions are irrelevant by virtue of the concept of separation of church and state as well as by virtue of the author's correct distinction between "murder" and "killing" in the Bible. Finally, I would agree with the author that the death penalty is not "state-sanctioned" murder except perhaps where it is imposed in a discriminatory manner or on innocent individuals.
The author rejects the opposition to the death penalty on the basis of the fact that the U.S. is the only democracy to impose it through a rationale with which I disagree although I accept the conclusion. In that regard, the point that the U.S. has a greater crime problem than other nations would, if it were sufficiently bad, also justify torture by the author's criteria. To my mind, the relevant issue is that many countries impose much more barbaric sanctions, such as cutting off limbs, stoning, and other brutal forms of cruel capital punishment. I would regard humane capital punishment as morally preferable, particularly in conjunction with the U.S. constitutional protections.
I would strongly disagree with the author's position that the death penalty is no longer (especially in 1985) routinely imposed in error, as well as with the author's position that the death penalty is no longer imposed in a discriminatory manner. Specifically, since this essay was written, the field of DNA science has demonstrated time and again that there is a definite risk of wrongful imposition and that is, perhaps, the strongest of all possible objections, especially given the profound importance of the presumption of innocence in this country. Similarly, while overt racial and social discrimination are no longer tolerated within the criminal justice system, the author ignores the fact that poor and minority individuals are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where they may become involved in crime and that once in the system, they are less likely to be represented by high-quality defense counsel. In that sense, the criminal justice system is still discriminatory in its effects if not in its design or intent.
I would agree with the author that capital punishment does not necessarily cheapen human life provided it is imposed and implemented ethically in relation to the other issues, and that that biblical prohibitions are irrelevant by virtue of the concept of separation of church and state as well as by virtue of the author's correct distinction between "murder" and "killing" in the Bible. Finally, I would agree with the author that the death penalty is not "state-sanctioned" murder except perhaps where it is imposed in a discriminatory manner or on innocent individuals.
Death Penalty All indications are that capital offenses are on the rise and the response to this phenomenon has been a cry to impose capital punishment as retribution. Certainly the issue is one of the most hotly debated in the world today; both for consideration of its humaneness as well as efficacy as a deterrent. For the purposes of this assignment we will examine the issue from both sides with the
Death Penalty An on-going Debate on Ethics and Morality The debate on whether the death penalty, or capital punishment, should be utilized in the United States is best seen in the varied laws that exist within each state. For this reason, many states, most of which are in the northern parts of the country are against capital punishment, while many southern states support this kind of a law. The U.S. map is
However, on the contradicting side, the question is "Can death penalty really deter criminals?." Several studies show it does not. An online source indicates the following evidences. From 1976 to 1996, the number of executions per year in the United States has increased from 0 to just under 60. The homicide rate per 100,000 population has remained constant at just under 10. Criminologists who belong to the American Society of Criminology,
The debate over the death penalty remains and the Supreme Court will most likely be asked decide such cases for years to come. Summary and Conclusion The purpose of this discussion was to examine several landmark Supreme Court cases and explain the evolution of capital punishment jurisprudence from 1972 to the present. The research focused on the cases of Furman v Georgia, Woodson v. North Carolina, Gregg v Georgia, McCleskey v
The death penalty may exact a high cost but so does remaining behind bars for life imprisonment (Haag 1986). But righting wrongs in a society has a higher option than entailing the costs. Penalties are also acts of social retribution to restrain personal or private vengeance aimed at vindicating the law and social order, which has been injured or violated by a crime. Proponents or advocates of the death penalty
However, sociologists argue that the retributive justice theory suffers due to the lack of appreciation of circumstantial causes involved in the commission of crime. By counting 'free will' as the only factor involved in a crime the deontological thinking lacks in the comprehensive analysis of criminal behavior. For instance the disproportionate number of crimes by the economically disadvantaged African-Americans when compared to Caucasians is a clear instance for external