Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment
“Capital punishment has always attracted controversy. Simply, the arguments for and against can be divided into four categories with a moral and a pragmatic argument on each side. … Punishment can be seen as serving three purposes: retribution, deterrence and reformation. (Von Drehle, 2008, p. 38). Capital Punishment is a very controversial issue that is sweeping the nation. Despite its title as humane the death penalty deter crimes, and sums up the saying “an eye for an eye.” While some feel that the death penalty serves as a rightful and just punishment to the crime that was committed, others feel that we as humans have the right to decide whether they die for the crimes they commit.
The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. Some family members of crime victims may take years or decades to recover from the shock and loss of a loved one, some may never even recover. One of the things that helps rush this recovery is to achieve some kind of closure. Life in prison just means the criminal is still around to haunt the victim. A death sentence brings finality to a horrifying chapter in the lives of these family members.
The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder around on a moral code that escapes certain proof by certain testimony. But communities would plunge into an immoral state if they could not act on moral rules less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. People may believe that the death penalty is naturally immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the person committed. But that is a statement of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense.
When retribution is fulfilled justice is better served. The most fundamental belief of justice is that the
“Capital punishment has always attracted controversy. Simply, the arguments for and against can be divided into four categories with a moral and a pragmatic argument on each side. … Punishment can be seen as serving three purposes: retribution, deterrence and reformation. (Von Drehle, 2008, p. 38). Capital Punishment is a very controversial issue that is sweeping the nation. Despite its title as humane the death penalty deter crimes, and sums up the saying “an eye for an eye.” While some feel that the death penalty serves as a rightful and just punishment to the crime that was committed, others feel that we as humans have the right to decide whether they die for the crimes they commit.
The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. Some family members of crime victims may take years or decades to recover from the shock and loss of a loved one, some may never even recover. One of the things that helps rush this recovery is to achieve some kind of closure. Life in prison just means the criminal is still around to haunt the victim. A death sentence brings finality to a horrifying chapter in the lives of these family members.
The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder around on a moral code that escapes certain proof by certain testimony. But communities would plunge into an immoral state if they could not act on moral rules less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. People may believe that the death penalty is naturally immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the person committed. But that is a statement of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense.
When retribution is fulfilled justice is better served. The most fundamental belief of justice is that the