Capital Punishment Using The Consequentialist Theory

Capital Punishment is defined as the legal authorization of killing a person as a punishment of a serious crime. This act has been around since the beginning of civilization, and even though the methods of punishment have changed throughout time, the idea is still the same. It is a way of punishing someone for a heavy offended crime. In this essay, I will discuss both sides of this ethical issue using the consequentialist theory. The C1 theory states that punishment as a response to crime is morally justified if compared to any other response to crime, will likely produce as much overall intrinsic value as would any other response. The C2 theory states that a specific punishment for a certain crime is morally justified if it would produce at least as much overall intrinsic value as would any other alternative punishment. I feel there are good effects that derive from the death penalty which include, reducing the amount of crime by removing the criminal, and also deterring others from committing crime through example and a threat. It could also bring somewhat of intrinsic value to the victims of families by bringing a type of closure. Ending the life of the criminal that killed your loved one, is morally justified, according to consequentialists. With the death penalty, statistics says a large percent of murder was
Capital punishment picks out and prevents a large percent in crimes. I feel the criminals that have committed murder or another serious crime deserve what they are given, even if it is the death penalty. It will make a criminal think again, and they might think that their life is worth more than committing the crime they are going to attempt. The seriosness of punishment they are given should equal the seriousness of the crime they have committed (an eye for an eye). But then I feel it is wrong that the physicians have to inject these criminals. It is part of their profession to protect others not kill