Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Dec 30, 2004 1:36:07 GMT -5
this is a paper i wrote on capital puinishment for a class i had a year and a half ago.
Capital Punishment, or the penalty of death for a criminal, is an issue that has been discussed in the United States almost since its founding. More specifically, the issue of whether or not it is morally justified to kill a person for committing a crime. In this essay I will try to demonstrate that capital punishment can be morally justified.
In order decide whether assigning capital punishment to a criminal is morally just, we must first understand why it is used. The purpose of the justice system is not to punish criminals, if that were so, it would be simple to assign punishments for crimes. Punish the criminal severely enough and he will learn that, if he or she performs a criminal act, there will be pain and suffering to pay afterwards, and therefore will be ill-inclined to go through with said act. No, the purpose of the justice system is to exact justice from a criminal for the crimes he or she has committed. But what is justice? Justice is defined as “The maintenance or administration of what is just, esp. by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.” By the Webster New Collegiate Dictionary. Therefore the courts must decide on a just punishment, or a punishment befitting the crimes committed. In most cases a criminal can be reformed and inserted back into society a changed man or woman, capable of working with society. This is not true in some cases, and in other cases, where reform may be possible; this treatment would not fit the crimes of the person. Mass murderers are one example of such a person. They have shown that they are willing to kill many people, many times very brutally, and causing much pain and mutilation before death. Although it may be kinder to criminal to just lock him in prison and throw away the key, it is not necessarily just, or befitting his crimes. He has killed many times causing much pain; not just physical, but also emotional pain for the victim’s surviving relatives and friends. He, therefore, does not deserve a chance at life again, he has shown himself to be a killer, and deserves a death sentence, for that is the only way to exact justice for his crimes. The point of his sentence is not to cause him pain, or show him the wrong that he has done, it is to exact justice for his acts, with no thought given to whether he has learned from his mistakes. The justice system is not a school, it is an impartial jury, in place to try criminals for their crimes, and dispense a just punishment.
On the other hand, though, there’s the problem of the falsely accused and convicted. There have been several cases of convicted criminals ending up being falsely accused due to evidence found after the trial, or from a confession after the fact. Could it be that we have more prisoners on death row that are not guilty, prisoners that are wrongfully imprisoned? It is better to sentence all prisoners to at most a life sentence, so if evidence that reveals their conviction to be false, the prisoner will still be around to be set free. Because it is impossible to tell for sure, in most cases, whether a prisoner is guilty or not, which is why the jury is instructed to tell “beyond a reasonable doubt” whether the accused is guilty or not. If the jury is not 100% sure of itself, how can you possibly kill another human being that may actually be innocent. Better to save a criminal than to kill an innocent.
It is impossible to get a 100% for sure conviction. The convictions we do get, though, are of a very high probability of being correct, thus the “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If you make allowances in the system for uncertainties that are unavoidable, you are admitting to the failure of the system, because the convictions can not be trusted. If you can not trust the convictions of the system when it comes to cases involving the death penalty, how can you trust the system to hand out life sentences, or even 1 year or 1 month sentences? The automatic fallibility of this court system is accepted and regarded as insignificant. The very fact that you can accept convictions for lesser sentences, even convictions for life in prison is enough that you can accept convictions for the death sentence. The only difference is the definitive ending of the death sentence. The death of a person is scary, to be sure, but in the cases where the death penalty is applicable, it is a just sentence for the crimes committed and is a fair punishment.
Is it not more just to put the said criminal into prison for life without possibility for parole? A criminal on a life sentence gets his or her whole life to sit and think about what he has done, a whole life time to feel sorry for the person he killed. That is a just sentence, because it does not harm the person physically, and respects his or her rights, but still ensures that said criminal has a chance to think about what he did., think about how what he did was wrong, why he or she did it, and how he or she could have acted differently in the situation that got him or her put into jail.
Again, we get to the same argument, are we out to punish the criminals, or are we trying to find justice. In a good number of cases, the people who commit the very heinous crimes do not understand that what they did was wrong. Can not understand the extent of what they did, and therefore will remain a risk to the society. In which case the time spent in a prison will be for naught but having to pay for the convicted person’s meals and bedding, as he will never feel bad about what he has done, nor will he care about the people he has affected. In these extreme cases, the death penalty would not only relieve society the burden such a person puts on it, but it was also relieve this person from a life he or she can not understand. The death penalty is almost a mercy killing, if not for the fact that it is done because of the crimes that person has committed.
But are we stooping to the criminal’s level when we kill them? Are we not
acknowledging that what they have done is not all together evil? That killing can have its uses? Killing a murderer is the same as killing any other human being, there is no difference between a murderer and another human except for his past actions. Every person has his right to life, be he criminal or civilian, and no man deserves to die anything but a natural death. A death sentence is a cruel and unusual punishment and should not be used as a sentence in the court of law.
All citizens of the United States have a right to life, agreed. But if a person takes away the rights of another person, they lose their corresponding rights. If a person takes away another’s life, thus ignoring that person’s right to life, the murderer has thus forfeit his own life in turn. Not only that, though, a person who has murdered another does not deserve rehabilitation, the criminal has inflicted pain on another, and taken their life, therefore, the criminal does not deserve a second chance, he didn’t give his victim a chance at life again, why should he be given one? As for the cruel and unusual part, what exactly is cruel and unusual? An unusual punishment is a punishment that does not fit the crime; death penalty for a speeding ticket, for example. Cruel punishments are punishments that no human should be subjected to, a cruel punishment also is a punishment that does not fit the crime, but goes further, it encompasses torture, or any other means of causing pain for the individual merely for the point of causing pain. Today’s executioners go to all lengths to make sure the prisoner feels no pain. A common method of execution is lethal injection, in which the criminal is put into a chemical sleep, one from which he will never again awake, and is then injected with a chemical to kill him as quickly as possible. The criminal never feels a thing.
I have discussed in this paper whether or not capital punishment, and shown why I think that it is not immoral. One could almost go so far as to say it is immoral to abolish the death penalty, as certain criminals have performed acts upon their victims worse than death. And as our constitution prohibits any kind of cruel and unusual punishment, we must resort to the death penalty.
Capital Punishment, or the penalty of death for a criminal, is an issue that has been discussed in the United States almost since its founding. More specifically, the issue of whether or not it is morally justified to kill a person for committing a crime. In this essay I will try to demonstrate that capital punishment can be morally justified.
In order decide whether assigning capital punishment to a criminal is morally just, we must first understand why it is used. The purpose of the justice system is not to punish criminals, if that were so, it would be simple to assign punishments for crimes. Punish the criminal severely enough and he will learn that, if he or she performs a criminal act, there will be pain and suffering to pay afterwards, and therefore will be ill-inclined to go through with said act. No, the purpose of the justice system is to exact justice from a criminal for the crimes he or she has committed. But what is justice? Justice is defined as “The maintenance or administration of what is just, esp. by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.” By the Webster New Collegiate Dictionary. Therefore the courts must decide on a just punishment, or a punishment befitting the crimes committed. In most cases a criminal can be reformed and inserted back into society a changed man or woman, capable of working with society. This is not true in some cases, and in other cases, where reform may be possible; this treatment would not fit the crimes of the person. Mass murderers are one example of such a person. They have shown that they are willing to kill many people, many times very brutally, and causing much pain and mutilation before death. Although it may be kinder to criminal to just lock him in prison and throw away the key, it is not necessarily just, or befitting his crimes. He has killed many times causing much pain; not just physical, but also emotional pain for the victim’s surviving relatives and friends. He, therefore, does not deserve a chance at life again, he has shown himself to be a killer, and deserves a death sentence, for that is the only way to exact justice for his crimes. The point of his sentence is not to cause him pain, or show him the wrong that he has done, it is to exact justice for his acts, with no thought given to whether he has learned from his mistakes. The justice system is not a school, it is an impartial jury, in place to try criminals for their crimes, and dispense a just punishment.
On the other hand, though, there’s the problem of the falsely accused and convicted. There have been several cases of convicted criminals ending up being falsely accused due to evidence found after the trial, or from a confession after the fact. Could it be that we have more prisoners on death row that are not guilty, prisoners that are wrongfully imprisoned? It is better to sentence all prisoners to at most a life sentence, so if evidence that reveals their conviction to be false, the prisoner will still be around to be set free. Because it is impossible to tell for sure, in most cases, whether a prisoner is guilty or not, which is why the jury is instructed to tell “beyond a reasonable doubt” whether the accused is guilty or not. If the jury is not 100% sure of itself, how can you possibly kill another human being that may actually be innocent. Better to save a criminal than to kill an innocent.
It is impossible to get a 100% for sure conviction. The convictions we do get, though, are of a very high probability of being correct, thus the “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If you make allowances in the system for uncertainties that are unavoidable, you are admitting to the failure of the system, because the convictions can not be trusted. If you can not trust the convictions of the system when it comes to cases involving the death penalty, how can you trust the system to hand out life sentences, or even 1 year or 1 month sentences? The automatic fallibility of this court system is accepted and regarded as insignificant. The very fact that you can accept convictions for lesser sentences, even convictions for life in prison is enough that you can accept convictions for the death sentence. The only difference is the definitive ending of the death sentence. The death of a person is scary, to be sure, but in the cases where the death penalty is applicable, it is a just sentence for the crimes committed and is a fair punishment.
Is it not more just to put the said criminal into prison for life without possibility for parole? A criminal on a life sentence gets his or her whole life to sit and think about what he has done, a whole life time to feel sorry for the person he killed. That is a just sentence, because it does not harm the person physically, and respects his or her rights, but still ensures that said criminal has a chance to think about what he did., think about how what he did was wrong, why he or she did it, and how he or she could have acted differently in the situation that got him or her put into jail.
Again, we get to the same argument, are we out to punish the criminals, or are we trying to find justice. In a good number of cases, the people who commit the very heinous crimes do not understand that what they did was wrong. Can not understand the extent of what they did, and therefore will remain a risk to the society. In which case the time spent in a prison will be for naught but having to pay for the convicted person’s meals and bedding, as he will never feel bad about what he has done, nor will he care about the people he has affected. In these extreme cases, the death penalty would not only relieve society the burden such a person puts on it, but it was also relieve this person from a life he or she can not understand. The death penalty is almost a mercy killing, if not for the fact that it is done because of the crimes that person has committed.
But are we stooping to the criminal’s level when we kill them? Are we not
acknowledging that what they have done is not all together evil? That killing can have its uses? Killing a murderer is the same as killing any other human being, there is no difference between a murderer and another human except for his past actions. Every person has his right to life, be he criminal or civilian, and no man deserves to die anything but a natural death. A death sentence is a cruel and unusual punishment and should not be used as a sentence in the court of law.
All citizens of the United States have a right to life, agreed. But if a person takes away the rights of another person, they lose their corresponding rights. If a person takes away another’s life, thus ignoring that person’s right to life, the murderer has thus forfeit his own life in turn. Not only that, though, a person who has murdered another does not deserve rehabilitation, the criminal has inflicted pain on another, and taken their life, therefore, the criminal does not deserve a second chance, he didn’t give his victim a chance at life again, why should he be given one? As for the cruel and unusual part, what exactly is cruel and unusual? An unusual punishment is a punishment that does not fit the crime; death penalty for a speeding ticket, for example. Cruel punishments are punishments that no human should be subjected to, a cruel punishment also is a punishment that does not fit the crime, but goes further, it encompasses torture, or any other means of causing pain for the individual merely for the point of causing pain. Today’s executioners go to all lengths to make sure the prisoner feels no pain. A common method of execution is lethal injection, in which the criminal is put into a chemical sleep, one from which he will never again awake, and is then injected with a chemical to kill him as quickly as possible. The criminal never feels a thing.
I have discussed in this paper whether or not capital punishment, and shown why I think that it is not immoral. One could almost go so far as to say it is immoral to abolish the death penalty, as certain criminals have performed acts upon their victims worse than death. And as our constitution prohibits any kind of cruel and unusual punishment, we must resort to the death penalty.