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.
The state, and in this case the judicial system cannot be responsible for deciding on this right. From this point-of-view, "the death penalty is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. The state can exercise no greater power over a person than that of deliberately depriving him or her of life" (Amnesty International, 2007).
Given the two elements mentioned above, it is important to underline that the maintenance of the death penalty even for cases where crimes against other people have been committed is not justified. This is particularly because the state, in its essence, is not without flaws. At the same time, taking into account the legal system in the U.S., based on the ruling of the 12 jurors, the life of the accused lies solely in the hands of those jurors. It is well-known that for every case and trial, the jurors are handpicked to support one or another party's case. Even if their impartiality should not be questioned, it is rarely the situation in which the jurors are completely...
Therefore, it is very important to underline the fact that no man should decide on the right of a human being to life or to die. From this point-of-view, even if the trial is part of the legal system, each juror is responsible for his or hers decision and for taking the life of another human being.
Overall, the death penalty must no longer be a viable solution for the state today. There are human rights to take into account as well as the possibility of human error which, under no circumstances, can justify the denial of the right to life of any individual, regardless of the crime committed.
References:
Amnesty International. The Death Penalty V. Human Rights Why Abolish the Death Penalty? 2007. Retrieved from http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT51/002/2007/en/3c7c3501-d36a-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/act510022007en.pdf
Babineck, Mark. "Former death row inmate Kerry Max Cook freed after 20 years." Tex news online. 1997. Retrieved from http://www.texnews.com/texas97/cook111297.html
3.0 Conclusion After exploring both sides of the death penalty argument, it's important to remember that neither side supports executions based on racial or financial bias. And, all want to see the defendant having competent defense and receiving the correct verdict. These issues are related to the application of the death penalty rather than the death penalty itself and they can be fixed. The two real differences between those supporting and
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
Politically correct or not, criminals should pay for the crimes they commit. In no society do we see no punishment for crimes. Walter Berns notes that Aristotle taught anger is just and those who kill should be held responsible. We do not live in such a politically correct society that executing justice is perceived as wrong. Justice is never wrong and we as a society should never feel guilt
Death Penalty Evolution of the Death Penalty in Supreme Court Jurisprudence Capital punishment has been in existence for centuries. As early back as the Eighteenth Century B.C., the use of the death penalty was found in the Code of King Hammurabi (Death Penalty Information Center [DPIC], 2010). The utilization of the death penalty for designated crimes continued through the years and became incorporated in Britain's penal system (DPIC, 2010). Britain's use of
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, warned about broader problems with the capital punishment. "When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint." He took into account the many dangers of the death penalty and concluded it should be restricted to homicides (Death Penalty Information Center, 2008). The main question regarding the research for or against capital
Through which he concluded that each execution prevents around seven or eight people from committing murder (Worsnop 402). In 1985, an economist from the University of North Carolina by the name of Stephen K. Layson published a report that showed that every execution of a murderer deterred eighteen would be murderers (Guernsey 68). While the numbers from these studies seem quite low as compared to the large number of