The ultimate punishment is death. Capital punishment is administered when an individual is convicted of committing serious crimes where people were killed. The death penalty is a very heated topic. Arguments are made through moral, economic, and practical perspectives. Many points, such as whether the death penalty deters crime, are argued both ways by research, making the death penalty a very complex and difficult topic. The death penalty’s many arguments provide for two clear sides, and while both sides have very valuable data and extensive points, in my opinion, the death penalty should not be abolished.
Firstly, the execution of the murderer serves as an act of justice. According to procon. org, Edward Feser, PhD, and Joseph M. Bessette, PhD, stated the following in their article “Why the Death Penalty Is Still Necessary” at The Catholic World Report website: “In another way, to sentence the most brutal and conscienceless murderers to less than death would fail to do justice because the penalty – presumably a long period in prison – would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime. Prosecutors, jurors, and the loved ones of murder victims understand this essential point…” The decision on whether or not there should be an execution also has an immense impact on the victim’s loved ones. The suffering of the victim’s family is immeasurably increased, knowing that the person who murdered their family member and who, in many cases, inflicted unimaginable terror – is alive and being cared for. Of course, putting the murderer to death doesn’t bring back their loved one, but it sure does provide some sense of justice. Secondly, the society doesn’t have the duty to pay for a murderer’s whole life in jail. It is very expensive to hold someone in prison for life. On average, prisoners stay in prison for 30 to 40 years at a cost of $40, 000 to $50, 000 per year. It seems unfair that we taxpayers are paying for a psychopathic killer’s living expenses.
Many opponents of capital punishment believe that killing murderers is the same as murder, and that eliminating them would be avenging on behalf of the victim’s family. However, people often confuse retribution with revenge. Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal
deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime.
People who support the abolition of the death sentence also argue that keeping murderers alive sanctifies the value of human life. But the opposite is true. Keeping every murderer alive cheapens human life because it belittles murder. Society teaches how bad an action is by the punishment it metes out. Imagine that the punishment for murder were the same as the punishment for driving over the speed limit. Wouldn’t that disparage murder and thereby devalue the importance of one’s life?
Other arguments against capital punishment include the claim that an innocent person may be executed. However, although this argument may be sincerely held, it’s not entirely honest. This assertion implies that opponents of capital punishment oppose the death penalty even when there is absolute proof of the murderers’ guilt. And now, with DNA testing and other advanced forensic tools, it is virtually impossible to execute an innocent person.
In conclusion, the death penalty should not be abolished because it shows the hand of justice to the worst criminals, like terrorists. Moreover, it is certainly ridiculous that we have to pay for a convict’s life in prison while we can just get rid of the threat imposed by him with execution. Nonetheless, the debate over the death penalty will surely continue as more research is done and new information is available.
The ultimate
punishment
is death.
Capital
punishment
is administered
when an individual
is convicted
of committing serious crimes where
people
were killed
. The death
penalty
is a
very
heated topic.
Arguments
are made
through moral, economic, and practical perspectives.
Many
points, such as whether the death
penalty
deters crime,
are argued
both ways by research, making the death
penalty
a
very
complex and difficult topic. The death
penalty’s
many
arguments
provide for two
clear
sides, and while both sides have
very
valuable data and extensive points, in my opinion, the death
penalty
should not
be abolished
.
Firstly
, the execution of the
murderer
serves as an act of
justice
. According to
procon
.
org
, Edward
Feser
, PhD, and Joseph M.
Bessette
, PhD, stated the following in their article “Why the Death
Penalty
Is
Still
Necessary” at The Catholic World Report website: “In another way, to sentence the most brutal and conscienceless
murderers
to less than death would fail to do
justice
because
the
penalty
–
presumably a long period in
prison
–
would be
grossly
disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime. Prosecutors, jurors, and the
loved
ones
of
murder
victims
understand this essential point…” The decision on
whether or not
there should be an execution
also
has an immense impact on the
victim’s
loved
ones
. The suffering of the
victim’s
family is
immeasurably
increased, knowing that the person who murdered their family member and who, in
many
cases, inflicted unimaginable terror
–
is alive and
being cared
for.
Of course
, putting the
murderer
to death doesn’t bring back their
loved
one,
but
it sure does provide
some
sense of
justice
.
Secondly
, the society doesn’t have the duty to pay for a
murderer’s
whole
life
in jail. It is
very
expensive to hold someone in
prison
for
life
. On average, prisoners stay in
prison
for 30 to 40 years at a cost of $40, 000 to $50, 000 per year. It seems unfair that we taxpayers are paying for a psychopathic killer’s living expenses.
Many
opponents of
capital
punishment
believe that killing
murderers
is the same as
murder
, and that eliminating them would be avenging on behalf of the
victim’s
family.
However
,
people
often
confuse retribution with revenge. Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger
because
of what he has done. Retribution is the
rationally
supported theory that the
criminal
deserves
a
punishment
fitting the gravity of his crime.
People
who support the abolition of the death sentence
also
argue that keeping
murderers
alive sanctifies the value of human
life
.
But
the opposite is true. Keeping every
murderer
alive cheapens human
life
because
it belittles
murder
. Society teaches how
bad
an action is by the
punishment
it metes out. Imagine that the
punishment
for
murder
were the same as the
punishment
for driving over the speed limit. Wouldn’t that disparage
murder
and thereby devalue the importance of one’s life?
Other
arguments
against
capital
punishment
include the claim that an innocent person may
be executed
.
However
, although this
argument
may be
sincerely
held, it’s not
entirely
honest. This assertion implies that opponents of
capital
punishment
oppose the death
penalty
even when there is absolute proof of the
murderers’
guilt. And
now
, with DNA testing and other advanced forensic tools, it is
virtually
impossible to execute an innocent person.
In conclusion
, the death
penalty
should not
be abolished
because
it
shows
the hand of
justice
to the worst criminals, like terrorists.
Moreover
, it is
certainly
ridiculous that we
have to
pay for a convict’s
life
in
prison
while we can
just
get
rid of the threat imposed by him with execution. Nonetheless, the debate over the death
penalty
will
surely
continue as more research
is done
and new information is available.