Death_Penalty

Death Penalty 1 Death Penalty Views Jessica Estep PHI 103 Instructor: Phillip Bence July 3, 2011 Death Penalty 2 Capital punishment is a form of punishment that only some states in the United States allow. I believe one of the reasons for this would is because the Death Penalty cannot be applied fairly to all people. There are many circumstances where I feel that a person is deserving of the death penalty but instead receives a life sentence. There are also instances where I believe the person should receive a life sentence but end up receiving the death penalty. There is really no concrete way to tell if a judge is going to give the death penalty or not. There are fluctuations of thought as well as fluctuations of emotions in these decisions. There are also many other outside factors that plays a part in the death penalty. If a deal outside the courtroom is struck by both sides, a death penalty won't occur. Yes, you would need to have committed a capital crime in order to receive the death penalty, but this is the only criteria that has to be met. There are no other criteria that needs to be met. The law is said to be a thing with no emotion just procedures. However, we all know that emotions play a major role in all decisions. Yes, judges and lawyers all have emotions, and they will put these emotions into their decisions. If a judge is happy one day he might give life, if he isn't, he might give the death penalty. You would never know, because there is really no consistency to what the ruling from the judge is going to be. Another factor could trickle down to the skill of the lawyer. A lawyer with tremendous litigating skills will likely get his client a lesser sentence compared to that of an incompetent lawyer. How do we know if we have a good Death Penalty 3 lawyer or we have a bad one' You can't really tell these days anymore until it's too late. They all have passed the bar and is a certified lawyer. What if you have never been in trouble before and you get an appointed lawyer, how are you suppose to know if the lawyer is a good one or if the state just stuck you with anyone. This can cause a major fluctuation on how the death penalty could be applied. A good lawyer would get his client life, while a bad lawyer might lose and get his client the death penalty. A good example of lawyers getting their client a lesser sentence happened in the O.J. Simpson case. All the evidence points to one conclusion, but his lawyers found enough loopholes and mistakes around the system to spring him free. The debate over the death penalty continues to confront our society. The proponents of capital punishment believe that the death penalty serves as the ultimate justice and that it will, in the end, deter murderers and promote the sacredness of human life. Opponents of the death penalty view it as harsh, unfair, and contradictory. They see hypocrisy in punishing murder by engaging in murder. They believe that the best remedy is to show respect for human life by not engaging in state-sanctioned killing. In the end, both sides have powerful arguments that support their cases. The anti-death penalty argument, ultimately, is founded on flawed assumptions, because it ultimately trivializes human life by not taking a firm stand on it. This is an imperfect world, and there are no perfect solutions to murder, but the least society can do is take a "zero tolerance" position on the taking of Death Penalty 4 human life. Even though we still have the death penalty, we live in a society that is very compassionate and humanistic. There isn’t any torture involved in the executions anymore. We have tried to come up with more efficient ways such as the gas chamber and lethal injection to kill the convicted criminals. The present criminal justice system gives the death penalty to people that commit horrendous crimes. And I believe that for every action we make in life there is an equal consequence. Therefore capital punishment is good for society because it makes people think twice about committing murder and it is a fair punishment for people that do commit terrible crimes. The proponents of the death penalty argue that it is the only real justice when it comes to dealing with murder. Their premise is that we live in a world where there are certain moral absolutes that have to be enforced. One of these absolutes is the sacredness of human life. Anyone that takes a human life, therefore, should be dealt the harshest punishment we can conceive of -- which is death. Ultimately, death penalty proponents believe that there is absolute evil, and that society must therefore deal with it in the most firm way. The only punishment that fits the crime of taking a life is the killer's loss of life. The punishment, in other words, must fit the crime. Supporters of the death penalty contend that moral values do not exist on their own. They must be promoted and supported by the society at large. Capital Death Penalty 5 punishment reminds everyone that our society holds life sacred and that it will not tolerate murder. It therefore not only stands up for certain values, but it deters potential murderers. Capital punishment, therefore, is not only a deterrent in the direct sense in that it reminds murderers that they will lose their life if they kill. It is a deterrent in the sense that it teaches all people in society that human life is sacred and that taking it will forfeit one's own life. In this way, a moral value is nurtured in society at large and prevents people from considering murder in the first place. Opponents of the death penalty believe it is a contradiction that society must kill to teach against killing. They argue that it is nonsensical to punish murder by carrying out state-sponsored execution. Capital punishment, in their perspective, dehumanizes human life just as equally as the convicted murderer. It teaches to kill. In their perspective, therefore, we cannot build a better society on the principle of murder and revenge. Indeed, how do we teach respect for human by taking life' If we are appalled by murder, how can we murder under the banner of justice. Surely this is hypocritical. Death penalty opponents also argue that the death penalty does not deter crime. Moreover, it can take the life of the innocent, since there have been many wrongfully convicted people that have been on death row. Thus, opponents argue that it is possible that the death penalty may kill innocent victims. In their eyes, if one innocent person dies, the death penalty is not worth it. Thus, the death penalty does not prevent the taking of innocent human life, it only increases the Death Penalty 6 chances of the taking of innocent life for the sake of revenge. Overall, opponents of the death penalty do not think that capital punishment is fair, nor that it can be applied fairly. It is simply just judicial murder. Life imprisonment is better, because it holds life sacred and allows criminals to make amends. In this view, society cannot teach against killing by instituting state killing. There has to be non-lethal punishment, so that the punishment can reflect good values rather than the values that it is trying to punish. Society must, instead, focus on teaching that no one is irredeemable, and that repentance and forgiveness is possible. By focusing on the value of human life, the state should not take life but nurture it. The arguments opposing capital punishment may sound persuasive and logical but they are ultimately specious and flawed. The argument that an innocent person might die on death row avoids the entire issue altogether. It evades the subject of what to do with proven murderers. The case is different if there is reasonable doubt. Then capital punishment can be put on hold because there has to be precaution in every case of the death penalty. But what we are talking about is what to do with proven murders -- the obvious cases. Opponents argue that capital punishment is revenge and that revenge serves no purpose. But saying this does not make it true. Capital punishment can be seen as revenge, but it is not revenge; it simply capital punishment of a capital offense. Opponents' argument that capital punishment does Death Penalty 7 not deter murderers is meaningless. It is ultimately; better to send a message that there is a price to pay for murder, than to send no message at all. Many of our present-day murderers are professional criminals whose victims were slain in the course of holdups, robberies, and other crimes committed for profit. So, many murderers do not kill for revenge, they have no malice against the individual they kill. Instead, they kill out of cold-blooded calculation. Society for its own protection should make it impossible for these men to kill again. In recent years the American public has been influenced to some extent by an active, persistent sympathy for the person accused of crime. But, I consider it a misplaced sympathy because it is a sympathy guided by emotion and impulse, It is so deep and passionate that it loses its senses of proportion. It forgets the life that was blotted out. It forgets the broken-hearts left behind. It forgets the fatherless and sometimes homeless children, which should be the real object of pity. Some people say that death penalty takes away a right to live and so cruel, but it’s not true. The death penalty performs the justice and expresses the compassion toward the victims and victims' families from the society. The death penalty must be executed when people make a serious crime such as robbery or rape, those who kill more than one person or those who torture their victims before killing them. Can we image, or understand the pain, the anxiety, and the fear that the victims felt during last few hours, few minutes, and few seconds on earth before the victims Death Penalty 8 died; that murderers who are really cruel not. The victims also have a right to live as everyone, why did the murderers dare to rob their lives' The murderers took the life that God created for human beings. The murderers must be received the death penalty as a part to payback the justice for the victims, as a way to show the justice still exist in the society, as a way to release the victims’ families' pain. There will never be a perfect system, but to abolish the death penalty because of a fear of a mistake will cause more victims; decrease values, and trivialize human life. We cannot be indifferent to murder, and if we are, than the fabric of our society will disintegrate. Certain moral absolutes and values have to be enforced. One of these is the sacredness of human life. By not taking the life of a murderer, we trivialize our view of human life. The victim must be our focus, not the killer. The ultimate justice is that the victim's victimization is honored with an appropriate response. Anyone considering the taking of a human life must be aware that they will pay the highest price by a society that honors the sacredness of human life.