Punishments for First Degree Murder

Punishments for First Degree Murder The harshest sentences in law are reserved for first-degree murder convictions. It is important to note that although the statutory sentencing options vary from state to state, first-degree murders (unlike second-degree murders) still attract sentences which although not unusual, are particularly harsh. In this text, I explore punishments for first-degree murders. In so doing, I will largely concern myself with the death penalty.

Punishments for First-degree Murder Essentially, "murder of the first-degree is murder which is perpetrated by means of any kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing" (Samaha, 2011). Before a conviction is secured against the accused, the three elements identified above must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt (Samaha, 2011). As I have already pointed out in the introductory paragraph, being the highest form of murder, fist-degree murder attracts the most severe punishments. Defendants in this case are in most cases eligible for the ultimate penalty of the state.

It is important to note that the ultimate penalty in this case varies widely by state. For instance, in some states, death is recommended as the ultimate penalty for this particular degree of murder. However, in other states, the ultimate penalty remains life imprisonment (without the possibility of parole). In some instances, the sentencing structure utilized could be two-tiered. In the past, it has been argued that in addition to being inherently cruel, the death penalty is particularly harsh.

Those advancing this line of thought are convinced that the death penalty should be abolished and to back up their assertion, they present a number of arguments. One of the arguments presented in opposition to the said penalty is that it a violation of the offender's right to life. However, in this case, one could be tempted to ask; can the right to life be regarded absolute? If such a right is indeed absolute, then it cannot be overweighed by any moral considerations. This seems rather unlikely.

For instance, it would be irrational to use this argument to protect an aggressor whose actions clearly threaten the lives of others. Many philosophers have in the past noted that some rights (in some circumstances) can indeed be forfeited (Kurtz, 2008). It could therefore be said that those found guilty of murder have by virtue of the said offense forfeited their right to life. Yet another argument that has been proposed in opposition to the death penalty is that the same is not only brutal but also demeaning (Siegel, 2009).

It should however be noted that some of the crimes committed by those found guilty of first-degree murder are both heinous and gruesome. If an individual takes the life of another in the cruelest way, why shouldn't such an individual be sentenced to death? According to Samaha (2011), in some instances, "brutal murders or torture murders intended to cause lingering death, appears on the list of aggravating factors that qualifies a murderer for the death penalty." It has also been argued that maintaining the death penalty is relatively expensive (Siegel, 2009).

Abolitionists as Siegel (2009) notes are convinced that given the number of legal appeals the said penalty attracts, it tends to be more expensive than incarceration. Although some studies have supported this point-of-view, some aspects of life imprisonment could make it more expensive in the long-term. Siegel and Bartollas (2010) are convinced that caring for.