Arguments for the Death Penalty

Capital punishment, also called death punishment, is a planned and pre-mediated stoppage of human life by authorities as a response to criminal activities committed by convicted persons. In the united states, as with many other countries in the world, the passions for capital punishment are widely divided, and is strong for both opposes and supporters of capital punishment. This composition explores some of the major ethical and legal arguments for death penalty.

Justification for death penalty

Death penalty can be morally justified by a simple precept: the severity of the crime should be approximately proportional to the punishment. Virtually all capital punishments in the whole world get based on this concept. There may be apprehensible variations from one region to the other on punishments specifics, but the rational for capital punishment remains widespread.

Most societies that impose death penalties have legitimate and accepted means of imposing these penalties. Therefore, there are no grounds for objecting the morality of the punishments simply because the result is the loss of human life. Ending the life of someone who has committed what the society perceives to be a horrible offence does not make the society immoral. The society, and not the law breaker, has the legitimate ability to determine unacceptable conducts and what punishments may result from the violation thereof.

Law breakers do not have any legitimate power to decide on the punishment to be imposed on them. In this regard, there is no way in which the taking a way of the life of a wrong dower can be considered a murder. Capital punishments are punishments just like any other punishments imposed froe wrong doing. As Maclean Gills puts it, “More restrictive measures with regards to crime punishment can help reduce crime levels in modern societies” (Gillis, 2011). The severity of the punishments may not be the same, but the rational for punishments are always the same, the world over.

It is in my opinion that offenders who have chosen to commit crime should be in a position to accept the punishments, however severe. Because most offenders commit crimes knowing precisely what the consequences are, defending them can be equated to defending crime.

If the society has established death to be a punishment for certain specific acts of criminal, then an individual may be lawfully stripped of their life in line with the constitution. In the case of the United States, the central government has unassailable powers to impose such penalties. People found guilty of capital offences and sentenced for death get determined in law courts, like other offenders, and foiled their right to life for their actions. Constitutionally such punishments are neither unusual nor cruel.

Without doubt, imposing the death penalty is a society's means of making conclusions that a particular person merits because of their actions. The justification of this punishment depends on the nature of the committed crime (Hodgkison & Rutherford, 1996). It is not only acceptable but also desirable for the condemned individual to suffer or feel pain as a consequence of the punishment (the method of application a side).

Opponents of the death penalty base their arguments on the belief that the death penalty has no justification for the notion of general tolerance. Based on the central rational of the death punishments, this belief is essentially irrelevant. The idea is not only to prevent the individual from committing any further acts of homicide or other crimes for that matter, but also to provide justice for the wrongs committed. This argument stresses the fact that the individual deserves to die. In addition, it should be remembered that death punishments removes the possibility of the individual to commit further homicidal acts while in prison. Imprisoning alone does not deter someone from committing further homicidal crimes. Imprisoning capital offenders endangers the life the guards and other prisoners. There is not much proof that the above is any more effective than life imprisonment is in preventing murderers killing again. After all murderers have the lowest recidivism rates of all offenders.

The main issue with the death penalty is the belief of what is ethically correct. Some people believe that it is not morally correct to execute an individual no matter how many people they kill. Such beliefs are not informed. The main reason why doctors remove cancerous tissues, no mater how useful they may be, is to prevent the cancer from spreading to other non affected cell. The same rationale applies to individuals convicted of homicide; the more they live, the greater the risk they impose on innocent citizens.

World trends

Majority of democratic states in Latin America, Europe and Africa have abolished death punishment over the last century. Most democracies in Asia, the United States and many totalitarian governments throughout the world still maintain death penalty. Offences that carry death penalty vary widely and ranges form homicide and theft to treason.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe that capital punishment is the best way to deter homicide and other capital offences for that mater.  I believe that executing murderers not only provides justice to the murdered, but also causes others not to commit homicide for fear of undergoing execution. Capital punishments render the offenders unable to commit crimes again.