Capital Punishment: Is it meeting its objectives? Is capital punishment meeting its objectives? Capital punishment is being applied to deter crimes that involve homicides and to punish the criminals who commit such crimes. Capital Punishment is not carrying out their intentions in a positive form. On the contrary, Capital Punishment is putting many criminals to rest in ways in which many consider to be an atrocity. Society understands that criminals have to be punished for their crimes, but should they be punished by such crucial means that occasionally give a negative impact to the public. This document will relate to, how the system of capital punishment gives the wrong idea to the public, why evidence shows that deterrence doesn?t have a huge role in homicide crimes now in days, how does the system of capital punishment give a negative concept on certain points, how discrimination also applies in the system of capital punishment, how does the system of capital punishment, in a certain way, breaks the rights of humans. This paper will prove that capital punishment is not meeting its goals and objectives. The system of capital punishment gives the wrong idea to the public including the young minds of children. Justice occasionally asks for homicide crimes to be paid for by death, using the phrase ?paid for?, which gives two ideas. One, paying with his or her life as if the criminal is debt with the law stating that it is acceptable to murder a person if the person is in debt with someone. Two, showing a sign of revenge as in saying: ?I?ll make you suffer for that?(Hugo 272).
The Essay on Capital Punishment is a Just Action
A strong case can be made in principle for and against capital punishment. The argument in favor of capital punishment should be based on justice and the nature of a moral community; this is the definition of a just action. People who commit the act of first-degree murder should be brought to justice. Being brought to justice requires that each person respect the life and liberty of others. ...
Capital Punishment provides, to the eye of the public including children, an idea that revenge is not an evil or terrible action. This idea goes against the morals that parents and society has given to children and to themselves as well. This picture of revenge can cause any person in society to kill another person because of revenge. These ideas that the system of capital punishment give to society help in every day atrocities. Most homicides that young teenagers commit, that deal with their partner, are proven to be an act of revenge because one cheated on the other. Not necessarily homicides have to be committed to show an act of revenge, for example: if a kid accidentally trips another than the other kid does the same for revenge. Deterrence is one of the principles of capital punishment, but evidence shows that deterrence doesn?t have a huge role in homicides now in days. Take this scenario into consideration: Two men get into an argument while drinking, and one pulls a gun and shoots the other, who dies. Do we suppose that this killer is even aware of the punishment for murder when he acts? Would he be deterred by the prospect of capital punishment but be willing to shoot if the punishment were only 20 years or life in prison (Hugo 273)? The idea of deterrence with the system of capital punishment is meant to give the idea that if you kill some one you will be killed as well, so keep from letting it happen.
This fear has an effect on society every day in ways that aren?t obvious. In some homicide cases, evidence shows that the killer had intentions of dieing himself and also wanted to take another person?s life with him so that they could arrive at purgatory together. In most cases of unpremeditated homicides, the idea of deterrence has absolutely no effect on the action of the killer. The system of capital punishment gives a negative concept on certain points. Theoretically the system of capital punishment takes a person?s life because he or she took another person?s life. This gives the perfect image of ?a life for a life? (Hugo 275).
By applying the death penalty to a killer they are punishing a murderer with murder giving the idea that it is all right to be a hypocrite. The system of Capital Punishment does not compensate for or erase those crimes that were committed. Death penalty has been applied to innocent people convicted of homicide. This states that it is all right to punish the innocent. Discrimination also applies in the system of capital punishment in certain forms. Money can have an impact in trials that are using capital punishment as a penalty for the convicted. Persons are sentenced to death and executed not because they have been found to be uncontrollably violent or hopelessly poor confinement and release risks. Instead, they are executed because they have a poor defense at trial (Dwyer and McNally 354).
The Essay on Capitol Punishment Capital States Death
... very heated debate. Capital punishment is the loss of one s own life in punishment for taking another persons life in the judicial system of America, but ... the jury in deciding whether to impose the death penalty. (Berns, Isenberg) Capital punishment has been limited very much from the wide range ...
A criminal with good representation has a better chance to receive years instead of capital punishment. A person of a poverty class might not be capable, economically, to provide himself or herself a good lawyer. The state provides them with a lawyer that in most cases is not very good for the reason that he or she doesn?t care to lose or win the trial. Most cases, that death penalty has been applied, has confirmed that black male rapist (especially if the victim is a white female) are far more likely to be sentenced to death penalty than white male rapist. Discrimination is also applied to murders that have mental problems. Criminals who have mental disorders are actually not criminals at all because it?s not their fault. Criminals who have mental disorders are sometimes sentenced to the death penalty not knowing that they are mentally disordered. The system of capital punishment, in a certain way, breaks the rights of humans listed in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Constitution, and the Bible, by deliberately depriving him or her life in cold-blooded murder. The right to life is the most fundamental right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and is guaranteed as such in our Constitution. The death penalty is premeditate and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state which can exercise no greater power over a person than that of deliberately depriving him or her of life (?Campaign for Abolition of Death Penalty?).
In article 51 A of the United States? Constitution guaranties the right of life to the people in the United States. The Bible states that every human has the right to live equal to every other person in the world. In conclusion, the intentions that the system of capital punishment is supposed to enforce are not being enforced in a way that is helpful to society. This research paper has proven how the system of capital punishment gives the wrong idea to the public. It has also proven why evidence shows that deterrence doesn?t have a huge role in homicides now in days, as well as how does the system of capital punishment give a negative concept on certain points. This research paper has also proven how discrimination also applies in the system of capital punishment. It has also proven how does the system of capital punishment, in a certain way, breaks the rights of humans. All these points show how capital punishment does not accomplish its purpose in a positive form.
The Term Paper on The Death Penalty And Deterrence As Public Policy
... whole legislation system of the recent days is whether death penalty is socially accepted practice, and should it not be abolished. Capital punishment is an ... social issues.Many people support this form of punishment, while others are against practicing death penalty. Every human being has the right to live and ...
Bibliography:
Bibliography ?Capital Punishment?, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. 1999ed. Dwyer, Diane and McNally, Roger, ?Public Policy, Prison Industries, and Business: An Equitable Balance for the 1990?s? Federal probation, June 1993: 30-36 SIRS Knowledge Source: Researcher 10 Feb. 2000 Haag, Van Den Ernest, ?The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense,? in Harvard Law Review (May 1986), reprinted in: Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial in Moral
Issues, 280-287 Hugo, Adam Bedau, ?Capital Punishment? in Tom Regan ed., Matters of Life and Death, 2d ed. (Random House, 1986), Reprinted in: Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial in Moral Issues, 274-279 Isay, David. ?No. 587.? New York Times Magazine, January 2, 2000 page: 34-36, 2 Pages. Rozen, Leah. ?Mr. Death, The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leucher, Jr.? People Weekly, New York, January 31, 2000 Volume 53 Issue 4: page 32, 1 page. Staletovich, Jenny, ?Justice Raising Voice to Bury Death Penalty? January 19, 1998
Stapleton, Christine, ?Death Penalty Cases with High Price? March 31,1996
Tonry, Micheal, ?Reconsidering Indeterminate and structured Sentencing? Sentencing &
Corrections Issues for the 21st, Sept. 1999:1-10, SIRS Knowledge Source: Researcher:
10 Feb. 2000
