Capital Punishment: Morally Wrong Or Inhumane?

Throughout American history, there have been multiple different forms of punishment. Lex taliones, better described as an eye for an eye, was one of the first codes to be widely accepted. This was the most simplistic form of punishment, and was always certain to fit the crime committed, due to its literal translation that is: equivalent vengeance. Although in today’s society, laws, mores, and all around better judgment stops codes such as these from taking place. It is rare for punishments to be as extreme as in past centuries. Which is why friedensgeld, hulks, banishment, and stocks and pillories are by todays stands ancient, unethical, and morally unforgiving forms of punishment.
For the majority of all crimes committed today, jail or prison
Mistakes such as finally realizing that punishment on a certain level should not be public. Although public hangings were used as criminal deterrents, they were finally understood to be morally wrong and inhumane. Capital punishment is not the best way to go about ‘rehabilitating’ offenders. There are a variety of reasons as to why that statement stands true, but the biggest one being the very simple fact that taking the life of another human being is morally wrong. Who gave one person, or a jury of people, the power to take someone’s life away from them? Need for victim restitution is understood to an extent, but taking of another’s life and depriving them of the ability to rebuild theirs and avenge past mistakes is just as bad as the crime committed to start the with. In specific regards to the previous statement on giving juries the ability to take a life, there is deeper statistical evidence proving why it is wrong to let the decision of life or death fall into their laps. Jury bias is a problem that has been presenting itself for many years in the United States. Bias shows itself when dealing with race in defendants and race of jury members, causing an unfair sentence determination for the