Reinstatement of Capital Punishment
Reinstatement of Capital Punishment
CLN4UI
Capital punishment gets a bad reputation by those arguing that killing is inherently wrong. Such a view is very subjective due to personal morals. Killing is always personal. But is it always evil? Putting down a rabid dog is not evil. Beings are not what their bodies are, so should sick dogs be put down for being sick? You could argue that putting down a sick body is merciful, but what about putting down one with a sick mind? What about a “rabid” criminal? A criminal deserving of execution must present great danger to those around him, just like a rabid dog. When one kills for the sake of killing, it’s wrong. When one kills for the sake of retribution and public safety, it’s noble. In this paper, capital punishment is viewed as a mechanism for achieving an end. The “an end” that we want achieved by the means of capital punishment is a safer society. Execution of certain delinquents is a mere means to that goal. There are many practical and logical reasons to argue pro-capital punishment, and in this paper we shall discuss three of such utilitarian arguments: the first being that incapacitation of dangerous criminals purge’s the public of its worst, thus creating a safer place for all; second is, retributive justice, as some wrongdoers cannot physically serve enough life sentences, for all the lives they’ve taken, to justify their stay on this Earth. Third has to do with the prorogued effects of having such a severe punishment system, and that is, deterrence in crime.
Putting dangerous criminals to death eliminates the society from the possible outbreaks of violence, in case if a murderer gets paroled or escapes prison. In the United States there is a prolonged list of convicted murderers who when either released on parole or escaped from penitentiary, commit similar, if not even worse, crimes. An example would be the case of Donald David Dillbeck who was convicted and found guilty on
CLN4UI
Capital punishment gets a bad reputation by those arguing that killing is inherently wrong. Such a view is very subjective due to personal morals. Killing is always personal. But is it always evil? Putting down a rabid dog is not evil. Beings are not what their bodies are, so should sick dogs be put down for being sick? You could argue that putting down a sick body is merciful, but what about putting down one with a sick mind? What about a “rabid” criminal? A criminal deserving of execution must present great danger to those around him, just like a rabid dog. When one kills for the sake of killing, it’s wrong. When one kills for the sake of retribution and public safety, it’s noble. In this paper, capital punishment is viewed as a mechanism for achieving an end. The “an end” that we want achieved by the means of capital punishment is a safer society. Execution of certain delinquents is a mere means to that goal. There are many practical and logical reasons to argue pro-capital punishment, and in this paper we shall discuss three of such utilitarian arguments: the first being that incapacitation of dangerous criminals purge’s the public of its worst, thus creating a safer place for all; second is, retributive justice, as some wrongdoers cannot physically serve enough life sentences, for all the lives they’ve taken, to justify their stay on this Earth. Third has to do with the prorogued effects of having such a severe punishment system, and that is, deterrence in crime.
Putting dangerous criminals to death eliminates the society from the possible outbreaks of violence, in case if a murderer gets paroled or escapes prison. In the United States there is a prolonged list of convicted murderers who when either released on parole or escaped from penitentiary, commit similar, if not even worse, crimes. An example would be the case of Donald David Dillbeck who was convicted and found guilty on
Bibliography: 1. Abubakar Kasim: Bring Back the Death Penalty for Brutal Murderers. (n.d.).Huffington Post Canada - Canadian News Stories, Breaking News, Opinion. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/abubakar-kasim/bring-back-the-death-pena_b_1499417.html 2. Angus Reid Public Opinion | What the world is thinking. (n.d.). Angus Reid Public Opinion | What the world is thinking. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.angus-reid.com/ 3. Cooper, A. (2006). A punishment to fit the crime?. North Mankato, MN: Sea to Sea Publications. 4. Griset, P. L. (1991). Determinate sentencing: the promise and the reality of retributive justice. Albany: State University of New York Press. 5. Muhlhausen, D. B., & Ph.D.. (n.d.). The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives. Conservative Policy Research and Analysis. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-death-penalty-deters-crime-and-saves-lives 6. Nguyen, L. (n.d.). Tori Stafford trial: Convicted killer Terri-Lynne McClintic reviews police statement | News | National Post. National Post | Canadian News, Financial News and Opinion. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/16/tori-stafford-trial-terri-lynne-mcclintic-reviews-police-statement-michael-rafferty/ 7. Timeline: 1990 - A History of Corrections in Florida. (n.d.). Florida Department of Corrections -- Homepage. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/timeline/1988-1990b.html 8. Terms, y. a., & conditions. (n.d.). Reconsider the death penalty |Columnists | Opinion | http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/21/reconsider-the-death-penalty