Capital Punishment In The Crucible

In Act IV of The Crucible, Reverend Hale makes the claim that life is “God’s most precious gift”, and nothing justifies the taking of it. The taking of a life is a topic that people are generally split on, however, it comes down to a difference in morals. Some people believe that life, no matter the circumstance, should never be taken. However, I am not one of those people. While I do agree that life is a gift, I also believe there to be certain principles that advocate the taking of a life justly. However, each one of these principles can be easily abused. Some of these principles include self defense, self preservation, and capital punishment.

Self defense is arguably the most justifiable reason for taking a life. If someone should ever feel as though they are in immediate danger, violent retaliation is one of the most
This principle, however should only be utilized when the punishment fits the crime, and there is no other foreseeable option for the perpetrator. The nonfiction novel In Cold Blood gives an example of both an acceptable and unacceptable use of capital punishment. In the case of Dick Hickock, the death penalty was used justly. Dick was portrayed as arrogant and self aware of his heinous actions. He knew what he was doing when he took his accomplice to the Clutter’s house, and was fully capable of preventing his actions. In the case of his partner Perry Smith however, death was not the only option. Perry was characterized as being emotionally stunted and immature. It was not clear whether or not the man even knew the difference between right and wrong. Childhood trauma even furthered the case that Perry needed severe mental help and rehabilitation, not just punishment. There was a chance that he could have been rehabilitated. When a secondary option is presented, it is almost always a better answer than execution. Murder cannot be solved with more