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...
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…
