- Introduction/Thesis Statement
Death penalty should be implemented to be able to achieve retribution (White, 2007). Furthermore, death penalty should be imposed upon certain individuals/offenders to be able to avoid more criminal behaviors (White, 2007). Last but not least, death penalty should exist because it is the appropriate punishment for heinous crimes (White, 2007).
I support the death penalty because of the following reasons:
First of all, death penalty serves as retribution, meaning, it provides justice to the victims of whatever crime committed (White, 2007).
Second, it serves as a deterrent to criminal behaviors or acts (White, 2007).
Last but not least, it is the “appropriate punishment” (White, 2007).
III. ‘Against’ the Stance
In opposition to the claim above, death penalty does not actually serve as retribution and it does not result to justice (Robinson, 2005). Explaining further, to kill another person to is not to attain justice but to carry out an act that will also entail getting justice for the other (Ten Commandments, 2007). It will only lead to circles and more and more killings will be carried out (Ten Commandments, 2007).
Also if killing another is equivalent to attaining justice then others will think/believe that such is the right way of addressing a situation wherein other people aggrieved others (Robinson, 2005). This will surely lead to a new definition linked/associated to the terminology, “retribution”, if such occurs, retribution will then have this new meaning, “something done or given to somebody as punishment or vengeance for something the individual has done” (Encarta, 2007).
Clearly, death penalty does not provide justice to the individual/s concerned; in fact, in this case death penalty is given a new meaning which is “vengeance” (Encarta, 2007).
Contrary to the above-mentioned, death penalty is not deterrent to any criminal behaviors or acts (Encarta, 2007). This is evidenced by the fact that people commit the act of killing or murder for different grounds and under various situations/conditions (Encarta, 2007). For example, homicides may occur due to family arguments/differences or even when the parties are extremely emotional (Encarta, 2007). In addition to that, there are also circumstances when people like hit-men are instructed to kill for someone else (Encarta, 2007).
Also, a mentally challenged individual may also have the capability of killing especially during his or her raging moments (Encarta, 2007). Similarly, those individuals who are technically referred to as “self-destructive” may want to commit murder for the sake of getting arrested/executed/punished/killed (Encarta, 2007). There are also cases wherein, a person who is drunk may be too incontrollable and may lead to killing somebody (Encarta, 2007).
In addition to that, statistical information backs up the claim that death penalty is not at all deterrent to crime because: 1) it played a large role in increasing the rates of homicide; 2) it is said that the rates of homicide in States where death penalty is implemented is much higher as compared with the States wherein there was no implementation of death penalty; 3) it is recorded that in New York, the number of murders increased just a month after an individual is subjected to death penalty; and 4) FBI stated that only 5 out of 100,000 are murdered in areas where death penalty has been brought to an end as compared with 10 out of 100,000 murders in the locations where death penalty has not yet been removed (Robinson, 2005).
It is quite clear that death penalty is not deterrent to any criminal behaviors or acts (Encarta, 2007). Again, this is because of the fact people commit the act of killing or murder for different grounds and under various situations/conditions (Encarta, 2007). In addition to that, the disturbing statistical information with regards to executions only proves that death penalty is not effective in lessening the crime rate aforementioned (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007).
- Appropriate Punishment
It is not appropriate simply because it is not “universalizable” (Kant’s.., n.d.). Therefore, it makes is terribly unfair and so it is not at all “appropriate” (Kant’s.., n.d.). Immanuel Kant says it is not appropriate because according to him “before anything is made into a law or a rule, it should apply to everyone in the same way” (Kant’s.., n.d.). This is because if it may not be applied to all individuals concerned then it is entirely unreasonable (Robinson, 2005).
For example, the mentally-challenged, underprivileged in terms of finances, males and racial/cultural minorities are “over represented among those executed” (Robinson, 2005). Also, ladies/females who are sentenced for murder are almost never subjected to punishments much less to death penalty (Robinson, 2005). Last but not least, “individuals who killed whites were four times more likely to be sentenced to death than convicted killers of non-whites” (Robinson, 2005).
Again, it is crystal clear that death penalty is not appropriate because it cannot be implemented on everyone that may be given such punishment (Kant’s.., n.d.).
- ‘For’ the Stance
Death penalty should be implemented for the sake of retribution (White, 2007). For the victims and their loved ones to get their piece of justice, it is important that death penalty be implemented on the person who committed the crime to them or their loved ones (White, 2007). See, if death penalty is imposed upon the person then there is no chance that he or she will have the opportunity to be liberated under a parole (White, 2007). Death penalty would also mean that the offender will never have the opportunity to escape from the punishment he or she was subjected to (White, 2007). If death penalty will guarantee the aforementioned then it may be equated to the retribution/justice that the individual and their loved ones were longing for (White, 2007).
Death penalty will serve as deterrence to behaviors that are criminal in nature because individuals will know what will happen if they commit murder or any crime punishable by such (White, 2007). If they know the consequences of such an act, then surely, they would not even think about carrying out such an act (White, 2007). Or if they are extremely determined already, then most likely, they will think twice, thrice, or more before finally deciding on it (White, 2007).
- Appropriate Punishment
Death penalty is exceedingly appropriate because it is what the offender deserves (White, 2007). For instance, if the offender took someone else’s life then it is only appropriate to subject him or her to death penalty and his life be taken as well (White, 2007).
In addition to that, it is appropriate because the offender would no longer be able to carry out once more the heinous crime that he or she did (White, 2007).
Clearly, death penalty should be imposed upon because it plays a large role in the attainment of retribution (White, 2007). In addition to that, it helps prevent more crimes to occur (White, 2007). Last but not least, it is a kind of punishment that is extremely appropriate (White, 2007).
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007). Death Penalty Statistics.
Retrieved December 7, 2007 from
Encarta. (2007). Deter. Retrieved December 7, 2007 from
Encarta. (2007). Retribution. Retrieved December 7, 2007 from
Kant’s Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved December 7, 2007 from
Robinson, B. (2005). Death Penalty. Retrieved December 7, 2007 from
Ten Commandments. (2007). Retrieved December 7, 2007 from
White, D. (2007). Pros and Cons of Death Penalty.
Retrieved December 7, 2007 from