Legalising Capital Punishment
Legalising Capital Punishment
The death penalty has been part of societies legal systems for centuries, being regarded as a necessary deterrent to horrendous crimes, and a way to liberate communities of dangerous criminals. China, the US, Iran and others preserve the death penalty, while we, like Canada, New Zealand and almost all European nations have abolished capital punishment from our legal system.
The death penalty is almost as old as the history of mankind. Various means of capital punishment involved burning, hanging, drowning, crucifixion, boiling to death, and electrocution. But nowadays a lethal injection is used. A lot less painful, and a lot more boring.
We need to support the death penalty, simply as a retaliation to murder. We were always told as kids, not to retaliate, but human instinct has always been that, if someone hits you – you hit them back. The death penalty is just a formal way of putting, “you kill someone, you will be killed.”
The issues that arise from having capital punishment usually evolve around to which crimes the punishment is extended to. Murder is easy; it is fair that one who has taken the life of another should suffer death. Drug dealers are a little shadier, there dealings may be monstrous, however they do not violate human lives, so they should be acquitted from capital punishment. Political crimes should not be punished with death, as this could open the way to political repression and physical elimination of political rivals, as it happened in Stalin’s times in the Soviet Union.
There are some religious groups that claim that only God can take a human life and human being are then not sanctioned to kill each other. However, in the Hebrew Scriptures there is evidence that Jews applied death penalty to criminals for selected types of crime.
In a research paper “Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs” by Cass R. Susstein and Adrian Vermeule, the authors suggest that death penalty is morally justified on the basis of distinction between acts and omissions. Most opponents of the death penalty argue that it is barbaric for a government to take a human life since there is a difference between an act, such as killing a person, and omission, such as refraining from the act. But, researchers argue, by forbidding official penalty, government officials in effect allow numerous private killings left unpunished. AND, a government that fails to maintain the welfare of the citizens by neglecting the death penalty from the legal system will leave citizens unprotected and decrease their safety and welfare within there communities.
We are paying for murderers that are currently sitting in our jails, living their lives confined from the public, and because of the all the human rights bullshit, are getting it better than the average homeless person. We let them live off our taxes, in conditions that may be better than what they had in our community, and maybe one day will be released and once again endanger society.
Recently there has been a case where a, man called Gareth Buck violated his parole on multiple occasions, he was charged with robberies, aggravated burglary, threats to kill, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon and thefts. Despite the charges his parole was not revoked. On May 11 2012, 6 months after his parole violations began, Gareth Buck, abducted Craig King, from a unit in Ringwood, and was bound with rope while he was hit over the head, tortured, and then slashed and chopped around the face and neck with a machete.
The murder of Craig King, should never have happened, and to think that Buck could be once again on parole within 20 years is horrifying. With the death penalty in place Buck will get the punishment he deserves, liberating the community from a man of such terror. The death penalty may have acted as a deterrent to Buck, and in that case, King would still be alive and with his family today.
To understand the bigger picture we can look at overcrowding of these criminals. Not only are the jails being overcrowded –which has its own flow on effects such as increased funding from government to build and sustain more prisons, which reflects at tax time when our pockets are emptied more. But on a global scale, we are letting these murders live, and with the ever-growing population of this planet, the questions of sustainability have already been raised. When these larger issues are looked at, it seems ludicrous that we are allowing those who have taken the lives of others, to continue to consume more of our resources, without the proper retribution.
Then there is the racist argument, claiming that the death penalty will be more often imposed on black people than white people. The ethical perspectives on this issue can be diverse and supported by many different theories. But we should look at the basis of there crimes and if they are punishable by death, if found guilty then they should be punished accordingly.
My deepest belief is that capital punishment must be re-instated in order to protect potential victims, reduce the thinning of our wallets, and to further act as a deterrent in the future.
University/College: University of Chicago
Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter
Date: 21 December 2016
We will write a custom essay sample on Legalising Capital Punishment
for only $16.38 $12.9/page