anti death penalty essaydescription=anti death penalty essay

  • Published on
    14-Apr-2016

  • View
    214

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • Get now! anti death penalty essay

    Link to anti death penalty essay

    Download anti death penalty essay pdf guide

    5 Strong Arguments to Provide in Anti Death Penalty Essays Are you against death penalty? Do you firmly believe that only Godshould judge people? Do you need strong arguments against death penalty? Then you have come to the right place. This article willhelp you make a well-grounded essay against death penalty . Below, you will find several arguments to provide in your anti deathpenalty essay, thus, to support your opinion. There is a possibility to condemn to death innocent people Those who judge are alsopeople who can make mistakes. A single mistake can cost lives of innocent people. Develop this idea in the essay against deathpenalty. There are lots of other methods to make criminals repent of their sins In order to develop this idea effectively in essaysagainst death penalty, mention that a criminal imprisoned is already distressed. Should he/she be sentenced to death in this case? Isthere any need in it? Discuss it in anti death penalty essays . Death penalty can have a brutalizing effect on society In some countries,death penalty is executed in public. This can amuse and brutalize some individuals. Speak on this problem in the essay against deathpenalty. Death penalty deprives criminals of one more chance Death penalty is not about inhumanity only. It does not give criminalsone more chance to realize their mistake, improve, and become useful for society. It is one of the most significant immoralities thatyou may talk about in your anti death penalty essays. Families and friends of the defendants can get serious psychological traumasWhile waiting for the final verdict, families of defendants live in a constant stress that can cause serious neurologic diseases. Hearingthe verdict of death sentence can kill them. When discussing this argument in your anti death penalty essay, say that governmentshould care about its citizens and take measures. Death sentence is not a way out! One of the most powerful keys to succeed incompleting essays against death penalty is strong arguments. Use those presented above and be sure to make your essay againstdeath penalty effective indeed. You can also continue investigating death penalty in your future History dissertation or graduate thesis.Want an expert write a paper for you? Talk to an operator NOW! The Value of Life: An Argument Against the Death Penalty DawnKrider Indiana University South Bend An eyewitness to the execution of John Evans in Alabama describes this scene from the finalmoments of a death penalty sentence being carried out: "The first jolt of 1900 volts of electricity passed through Mr. Evans' body. Itlasted thirty seconds. Sparks and flame erupted from the electrode tied to his leg. His body slammed against the straps holding him in

  • the electric chair and his fist clenched permanently. A large puff of grayish smoke and sparks poured out from under the hood thatcovered his face. An overpowering stench of burnt flesh and clothing began pervading the witness room. Two doctors examined Mr.Evans and declared that he was not dead." It took three jolts of electricity and 14 minutes before John Evans was declared dead(Radelet, "Facing the Death Penalty"). Throughout history, various forms of executions such as this one have taken place as apunishment for crime. In 1976, the United States reinstated the death penalty after having revoked it in 1972 on the grounds that it"violated the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment" (MacKinnon, "Ethics" 289). Since its reinstatement, the morality ofsuch punishment has been extensively debated. I argue that the death penalty cannot be morally justified on the basic grounds thatkilling a human being as a form of punishment is wrong. A major argument supporting capital punishment is that it serves as adeterrent to crimes - specifically, murder. However, this argument requires that the would be killer would take at least a moment toconsider what the consequences of murder within our legal system are. This assumes that the killer is capable of such reasoning, andthat the crime would be considered before it occurred. In fact, "those who commit violent crimes often do so in moments of passion,rage and fear - times when irrationality reigns" (Information, "Capital Punishment" 107). Whether or not a murder or crime ispremeditated, there are statistics existing that cause us to question how supportive an argument of deterrence can be. In 1989,Senator Edward M. Kennedy, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee said that if we look at other Western democracies,"Not one of those countries has capital punishment for peacetime crimes, and yet every one of them has a murder rate less than halfthat of the United States" (Information, "Capital Punishment" 110). The Information Series on capital punishment also says that statesthat FBI statistics from 1976-1987 show that "In the twelve states where executions take place, the murder rate is. exactly twice themurder rate of the thirteen states without the death penalty" (111). The deterrent value of capital punishment is certainly in question.Killing a human being as a deterrent to crime is, in essence, using a human being as a means rather than an ends. Kantian ethicsstate that we are to treat people as having intrinsic value and not simply instrumental value. "People are valuable in themselvesregardless of whether they are useful or loved or valued by others" (MacKinnon, "Ethics" 56). Also, as MacKinnon states, "using theconcern for life that usually promotes it to make a case for ending life is inherently contradictory and a violation of the categoricalimperative" (133). If we hold that killing is wrong (except in self-defense) and therefore a killer needs to be punished, to follow with theconclusion that the killer's punishment is to be killed is completely contradictory. Some would argue that the execution of a murderer isin the "self-defense" of society itself. This is a distortion of the definition of self-defense. Self-defense is when your life is in immediatedanger and a reaction is necessary in order to prevent your injury or death. I believe that self-defense could also apply to situationswhere the lives of children or others who could not defend themselves were in immediate danger and someone else had to react inorder to protect them. The key phrase in each of these definitions is "immediate danger" and, in the trial of a murderer, there is noindication or guarantee that the person is going to kill again, and there is no immediate danger or threat that requires reaction. This isnot self-defense and does not justify killing. Simply because a guilty verdict requires that the murderer be punished, it does not followthat the punishment should be death on the grounds of self-defense. The determination of guilt within our legal system is also inquestion. Legally, criminals are to be "innocent until proven guilty", but in reality they are often "guilty until proven innocent".Unfortunately, our legal system is not always just or accurate. Innocent people are convicted. This can happen due to inconclusiveevidence, the socioeconomic status of the accused, or jury/judge bias and prejudice, among other factors. A criminal who is convictedand sentenced to imprisonment and then later proven to be innocent can be released. Such is not the case once the irrevocable deathpenalty has been carried out. The Information Series on capital punishment cites the work of Michael Radelet of the University ofFlorida who counted since the turn of the century "343 cases in which a defendant facing a possible death penalty was wrongfullyconvicted. Of these, 137 were sentenced to death, and 25 were actually executed. Sixty-one served more than 10 years in jail andseven died while in prison" (77). If even one innocent person is wrongfully killed, how can we claim that this is justice? Racial andsocioeconomic factors also come into play in the trial and conviction of the accused. The Information Series states that "since thedeath penalty was reinstated, six White defendants have been executed for murdering a Black person, while 112 Black people havebeen executed for the murder of a White person" (105). Samuel Jordan of Amnesty International also points out that in 1998, "althoughAfrican-Americans count for 50 percent of homicide victims in the nation, 82 percent of death row offenders have been convicted forthe murder of Whites" (Information, "Capital Punishment" 104). In the 1970's the Baldus Study found that "defendants charged withkilling White persons received the death penalty in 11 percent of cases, but defendants charged with killing Blacks received the deathpenalty in only 1 percent of the cases" (Information, 46). The Baldus Study also found that prosecutors sought the death penalty morein cases where a Black defendant was charged with killing a White. Samuel Jordan pointed out that "poverty as well as race oftendetermines the allocation of the death sentence. Inadequate, inexperienced representation for indigent defendants characterizes mostlegal litigation" (Information, 104). While the unfairness and inequality of our legal system does not show that the death penalty itself iswrong, I would argue that because of the judicial disparities shown in the statistics above, we know can never be 100 percent certainof the guilt of an individual. Due to this measure of uncertainty, it is morally wrong to determine a punishment that is as irreversible asdeath. We cannot put ourselves into a position of God. Some will say that the killer's actions are irreversible and that such a crimedeserves an equal punishment. These same people would cite the biblical passage that exhorts "an eye for an eye and a tooth for atooth". However, if a crime deserves equal punishment, then why do we not rape the rapist or burn the arsonist? A civilized societymust be based on values and principles that are higher than those it condemns. As I stated previously, to punish killing with death isinherently contradictory. Biblically we are called to live by higher values. In the New Testament, Jesus said that we may have heard itsaid "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but he instructed us to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38-41) to love even ourenemies (Matthew 5:43-45), to obey the Ten Commandments which tell us not to kill (Exodus 20:13) and not to put ourselves into theposition of God by judging whether others live or die (John 8:7). Vengeance and retribution are to be left to God, who is the only onewith the perfect capabilities of judgment. If the argument is that serious crimes deserve equal punishments, it is interesting to note, asMacKinnon states in her text, that the death penalty is also assigned as punishment for treason and rape. Capital Punishment isobviously extreme and unequal to such crimes. There are also certain times when the death penalty is not sought for murder cases(297). The inconsistencies in application seem morally problematic in themselves. Burton Wolfe quotes Albert Camus as saying:What is capital punishment if not the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal act, no matter how calculated, can becompared? If there were to be real equivalence, the death penalty would have to be pronounced upon a criminal who had forewarnedhis victim of the very moment he would be put to a horrible death, and who, from that time on, had kept him confined at his owndiscretion for a period of months. It is not in private life that one meets such monsters. ("Pileup" 419) Camus goes on to say that "thedevastating, degrading fear imposed on the condemned man for months or even years is a punishment more terrible than death itself,and one that has not been imposed on his victim" ("Pileup" 419). A Utilitarian might argue in support of the death penalty based on themoral premise that the goal is to increase the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Often the victim'sfamily and others in society will claim that the death penalty is "justice" and that therefore they are happier when it is applied. I would

  • argue that this "happiness" is often more of an appeasement - - a very shallow form of "happiness" that is actually wrapped up inanger and revenge, and not what Utilitarians would classify as true happiness. John Stuart Mill would classify this as a lower pleasureor happiness as described in MacKinnon's text (37). I would also argue that such "happiness" would be of short duration. The killing ofthe murderer does not bring back the life of the victim, and the sorrow from that death is not eliminated by adding the death of another.It would also need to be taken into account that the murderer may also have friends and family who would be caused pain andsuffering by the death of the person they care for. It also seems morally dangerous to apply The Greatest Happiness Principle to thedetermination of whether or not another human being lives or dies. Using this type of reasoning a killer could be able to justify hisactions if he were able to prove that greater happiness was produced through the killing of one individual than if they would have lived.The intrinsic value of life itself does not allow for this kind of reasoning for ending it. Killing a human being hinders them from reachingtheir goal of mature potential. As MacKinnon states when discussing Natural Law Theory, " the innate drive toward living is a good initself" (133). Other human beings should not choose the time of another human being's death - this is not natural. To argue that thekiller has done this does not make it morally justifiable for us to do the same to the killer. Killing an individual robs them of theopportunity to rehabilitate and to live a good life. Whatever the reasons might be that would determine that a person should besentenced to death, there can be no argument that we are prematurely ending the life of another with no foreknowledge of what theirfuture may have held. We have no means beyond mere hypothesis to determine what the future actions of an individual will be. This isnot to argue that certain actions do not morally require punishment, but simply to argue that the death penalty itself is an inappropriateform of punishment because of the way that it devalues life itself. As members of a civilized society made up of morally responsibleindividuals, I feel that we are required to consistently value human life. There can be no "fair" judgment of which lives have more worththan others and we cannot, as a society of moral beings, be saying that it is wrong to take a life and at the same time threaten that ifyou do, we will take yours. The existence of the threat itself within our legal system contradicts the value we are trying to uphold.Gandhi was a strong proponent for peace and nonviolence within society and throughout the world. Eknath Easwaran quotes Gandhias saying, "Violence ca...

Recommended

View more >