The death penalty as a punishment has been argued for and against its ethical, moral, and justifiable implications since its entrance into our justice system in 1630. Since colonial times, our ideas of justice have changed, adapted and responded to a variety of criminal activity. The employment of capital punishment varies from state to state and currently there are 35 states upholding the death penalty. New Jersey abolished the punishment in 2007 - not too long ago.
Do you think our court system has the right to impose the death penalty on a criminal? What is your viewpoint? What do you think are some arguments for and against its constitutionality? Knowing what we have studied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is there room for such a sentence?
Think about your position on the subject not only as a citizen, but as a hypothetical criminal, juror or judge, or victim or family member of a victim's position. You may change your opinion depending on several factors. Try to think of all sides of the argument before expressing your opinion.
For further information, you may be interested in reading a piece by New York Times journalist, Bob Herbert entitled, "Broken Beyond Repair" or an article called "The Death Penalty: Morally Defensible?" .
19 comments:
I think the main reason why the death penalty was and is seen as a suitable punishment is because many people believe in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." The families of victims of crimes who are not satisfied with the guilty verdict might favor the death penalty because of revenge. If their loved one was murdered then they want the murderer dead as well. What they do not realize is that killing another person will not bring the person they lost back.
I think the court system should not place the death penalty on any criminal, no matter how heinous the crime was. That criminal, no matter how insane or grim, has a family too. The criminal's family will be placed in the same shoes as the victim's family. The court must also keep in mind that even the most unkind criminal has a heart.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that every human has the freedoms stated in that document, a criminal is no exception.
By no means am I saying that a murderers or rapists should walk freely among us. I am saying that they should still be put in prison, for long sentences or for life, depending on the crimes committed.
I think that the court systems should only be allowed to impose the death penalty on a a person who has committed more than one murder. I completely agree with Ashley about an "eye for an eye" and how people think that taking the life of a murderer will not really change anything. Our court system should only be allowed to authorize a life sentence which is not as terrible as the death penalty.
The family of a victim has to understand that the criminal may have made the wrong decision at the wrong time. Maybe the criminal acted before he thought. Most families would want someone who killed one of their loved ones to die before thinking about the fact that they are also a human being as well. If anyone in the victim's family were to put themselves in the criminal's shoes they would certainly take the life sentence over the death penalty. Even though the criminal may have taken the life of another he does not deserve to die. By sentencing him to life in prison he will be kept away from the rest of society so that he/she cannot hurt anyone again. That way the family won't have to worry and the criminal will be punished but will keep their life.
Personally I do not think their should be any death penalty in any state because it is inhumane to take an "eye for an eye". Yes if they committed a crime they should be punished but just like every other human being they have the right to live. Especially if an innoncent person is found guilty and they are given the death penalty. In that case an innocent man would be killed for no reason and the real culprit will still be on the streets to commit even more crimes. The only reasonable crime that the death penalty should be used for is a mass murder or massacre. Other than that life in prison is a more reasonable and humane form of punishment. Time in prison will give them time to think about what they have done. By killing them they will not learn from their lesson. The death penalty is almost like a get out of jail free card. If there is an afterlife they will move on but if they are forced to stay in prison that will give them time to learn from their mistake.
But that is only my opinion, which is not enough to abolish this cruel punishment. Maybe one day the world will concoct an alternative solution.
I think the death sentence is very wrong, ethically, morally and in every other way. I’m taking law, and we were talking about the death sentence a few weeks ago. I wanted to ask my teacher if New Jersey had the death penalty, but I was afraid to hear the answer, if we did. I’m glad you told us though because that’s very important to me.
I agree with Danny, about what he says, that the death sentence is sort of like a get out of jail free card. If we let them die, we give them what they want. Some people who have committed crimes want to die, since they cannot live with what they have done. Killing a person does not solve anything, and I do not think that in any circumstance no matter the crime, should a person get sentenced to death. Also if we kill them they do not ever learn their lesson, they just get off easily.
It says that 35 of the 50 states have the death penalty, which is horrible, that is more than half of our states.
I don’t think our court system ever has the right to kill another human, for committing a crime. Like Ashley said, about an eye for and eye, could be why some people think they can justify killing someone, but they can’t. Just because you kill someone does not in any way make it okay for someone to kill you. It says in the UDHR, that all human beings are equal and are born free, and killing someone just because they committed a crime, does not treat them as equals.
. . . Honesty, as bad as the death penalty may seem. In today's world, it may be the only way to keep peace in the world. The court system has a right to impose the Death Penalty IF and ONLY IF the conditions are right.Like homicide (In case no one heard this in the newspaper, one man killed a mother and father. Tied two young sisters an, 8 and 15 year old; to a bed and set the whole room on fire) Now that, you deserve to die for such a crime.
As many have said previously, "eye for an eye" what if your the victim or the victim's family member. Are you going to want them to get away with murder or go to a jail that does not treat them like the "scum" they are. If you are the criminal unless you have a real, real, REAL good reason, you get what you desreve. life in prison or death. The judges such adress the crime and punish them fairly. No death penalty should be given if someone steals, but for more extreme cases like 2nd and 3rd degree murder.
UDHR would not accept this penalty but I hate to say this but no one really listen to the document because it is not enforced. So the UDHR in this issue almost does not matter. Death Penalty can be used if the crime is extreme.
America could use a different way of punishment. Send some people to different counties because Some prisons there are a fate worse than death.
One prison in Thailand also known as "The Bangkok Hilton" is like hell on earth. A prison like this in America might lower the crime rate by 5%, per prison. Death penalty not needed. You wear leg shackles for the first 3 months there, you cramped in a cell with estimate of 20 people or more. You got 1 meal a day. You complained about anything, you were sent to "Building 10." You are shoved in a room of complete pitch black darkness for DAYS. It drives people to complete insanity.
While inhumane, it keeps people in check. Jail and Death are almost no different. Burn in Hell or rot in a prison cell for life. Its the criminal's choice, after all, they chose to kill a whole family for no good reason. This punishment and the death penalty should ONLY AND ONLY be used for extreme cases like 2nd and 3rd degree murder. I don't think is should be used for manslaughter because it was an accident.
There are 35 states in America that allow the punishment of the death penalty. This punishment is barbaric and violates the “cruel and unusual” right in the Bill of Rights. Not only is it wrong, but it gives off the wrong message to people. You killing someone who had killed someone else, so how is that showing that killing a person is wrong? It is also a useless punishment because killing the person who committed the crime will not bring the victim back a live. Putting someone to a death sentence is a very serious punishment and should be banned in all states. Some men and women are giving the death penalty and years and years later the court finds out that they are innocent. This penalty is also a way of showing sympathy to the victim’s family.
I really like Danny’s and Rachel R’s response. Rachel mentions how the death penalty is suitable because many people believe in the “eye to eye.’ I like that response because it is true, what good are you doing if you are trying to get revenge? It makes you just as bad as the killer, because you are killing a person as well. Also if you seeking revenge, why would want the kill the person. Like Danny said in his response the death penalty is a “get out a jail free card.” Most people who are convicted would rather take the death penalty because it is one second of suffering. While giving the convicted person a life sentence would put them through pain for decades, where they live in an environment of rape and violence.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights, gave all American citizens freedoms and rights. There would be many conflicts with this because you’re invading the right of cruel and unusual punishment. Everyone in America deserves those rights. It also affects the UDHR because you are invading the rights of a human being. Killing a person is taking all their rights away, and every person born in America are born with equal rights. Just like Rachel C. mentioned in her response that the UDHR means everyone is equal and killing someone means you are not treating them as equals. Therefore I believe the death penalty should be banned from all the states.
biancasanabria13@hotmail.com
Can I get the grades from my other responses?
I think that the penalty of death is needed depending on both the situation and the persons past. The reason that the death penalty was instaled in todays court system came from the eye for an eye situation and because this is now found or illegal because as Ghandi says "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind" so that they each person who is found guilty of murder of more then one person should be put to the penalty of death.
An argument that could be used against the death penalty could be everyone is entitled to life so everyone deserves to live. So humanitarians would say no matter what the situation all should deserve to live.
I feel as though America has been going through a transition in which its moral standards are evolving. However, it disappoints me that there are still 35 states in which the death penalty is in effect. My disappointment is due to my feelings that we should be evolved much further by now; we should be evolved to the point where it is widely realized that the taking of any human life is wrong - criminal or not.
I disagree with Danny when he said: "The only reasonable crime that the death penalty should be used for is a mass murder or massacre." I do not believe it is ever necessary to punish one with death. After all, who gets to decide the value of one life over another? And who decides whether or not a crime is serious enough to dictate the loss of the offender's life?
As Ashley previously stated, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to ALL humans. And though many heinous crimes may be the result of inhumane behavior, it does not strip on of his humanity, and thus, his entitlement to those rights as well. This most importantly includes the right to live.
When a crime is committed, I feel that the guilty person should serve his or her sentence. However, I feel that the death punishment is unconstitutional. We are all familiar with the term: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. But what happens when you realize that taking the life of another man or woman only makes the matter worse? How it the justice system helping the cause of the victim’s family if another death takes place. Why is the death penalty even legal? Because the justice system is the one responsible for the death of the perpetrator, it is deemed as just and fair. At the end of the day, people still died even though they deserved it or not.
In my opinion, the death penalty completely contradicts article five of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Sentencing a man to death is unusual and cruel punishment. No matter how crazy or malicious the crime is, death penalty is unnecessary and it stirs up controversy.
I completely agree with Ashley’s response because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is for ALL human beings no matter what they did. Ashley and I do not condone murders or rape both we both agree that the death penalty is certainly unconstitutional.
The imposition of the death penalty raises the compelling question as to whether the government may take the life of a citizen. The Declaration of Independence states that the right to life is “inalienable,” which implies that a person’s life may not be taken by the government. Yet, throughout our nation’s history, the courts have imposed the death penalty for crimes such as murder. The Constitution of the United States explicitly provides for capital punishment in the case of treason. It appears that under extraordinary circumstances, the right to life can be alienated based on a person’s conduct.
Some people believe that the right to life should never be taken away by any court or governmental body because it is inalienable. There are, however, certain circumstances in which law enforcement or the military has a duty to take a life. Typically this falls under the right of self defense or the defense of others. If a criminal or terrorist is attempting to harm others, the state’s right to protect the lives of the innocent outweighs that of the person committing a deadly act. The complication comes in when a criminal has been arrested, tried and convicted, and sits in prison posing no imminent threat to society. Executing the prisoner is generally not a matter of justifiable self defense. Some individuals feel that execution will ensure that the convict never repeats his or her conduct, but this reasoning is not a valid application of self defense. Rather, the justification for the death penalty is founded in retribution, which is a longstanding rational punishment with which I agree.
Second, there is the issue of whether the death penalty is applied fairly. Based on years of statistical analysis, where a defendant is poor or is a minority, the chance of the death penalty being applied is much more likely than for white defendants or those people who have economic resources. Poor defendants typically are represented and assigned counsels who are ordered by the court to work for free. These defendants often receive low quality representation. In one instance, defense counsel in a murder trial was found to have slept through much of the proceedings. As a result, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to death.
There is also a principle of justice that says it is better for a hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man to die. Accordingly, the state of Illinois abolished the death penalty several years ago. Based on the work performed by law students and professors at Northwestern University, it turned out that many of the prisoners sitting on death row were actually innocent of the crimes for which they had been convicted. Using high-tech DNA and other evidence these defendants could not afford at trial, the Northwestern project exposed just how poorly the justice system had performed. One man was pardoned the night before he was to receive a lethal injection; the Governor of Illinois at that time had been a life-long death penalty advocate. After he witnessed how many citizens would have had their lives tragically taken, he changed his position and fought to abolish the death penalty.
The crime of murder is a horrible act that can never be taken lightly. Equally serious are the realities involved in any government executing citizens. I do favor the death penalty, but this assignment has forced me to question my beliefs. I still believe the death penalty may be applied under appropriate circumstances such as military conflicts, the war on terror or cases where the nature of the crime is particularly brutal and little doubt as to guilt exists. I also believe that every effort must be made to ensure that the death penalty is applied fairly, and defendants receive adequate representation including access to technology that could prove their innocence.
I have mixed feelings about Danny’s statement: “… more reasonable and humane form of punishment. Time in prison will give them time to think about what they have done. The death penalty is almost like a get out of jail free card…time to learn from their mistake.” First, if a criminal commits a crime that is considered inhumane, why should they receive the benefit of being treated like a human? (Golden Rule). For some criminals, it does not matter how long they remain in prison; if they are morally handicapped, they will never understand their wrongdoings. Also, psychopaths will never be rehabilitated because their original act may not be viewed as a mistake in their minds. Such is the recent case in CT concerning the murder of a doctor’s family. The murderer expressed zero remorse and was hoping to receive the death penalty according to reports.
If a criminal was to rape or assault another person, not only is the victim physically injured but he/she will suffer a great amount of psychological and emotional damage. The victim’s life will never be the same, and his/her normal life is ruined, while the criminal just sits in prison supported by tax payers.
If the death penalty is not imposed, then incarnation should feel like prison, not a scaled down country club. Minimal rights should be extended to prisoners, including a 5 by 8 cell and/or solitary confinement. Nutrition and health services should be adequate, but not excessive. While this view may sound harsh, punishment should serve as a real deterrent to others who may be contemplating similar acts.
e.e.butler@comcast.net
This is a difficult opinion for me to make. I am not in favor of putting anybody to death, but I am also opposed to letting a murderer or rapist live, even in a prison for the rest of his or her life. Life is an amazing privilege that almost everybody at one point or another takes for granted. Life is beautiful, and to rob someone else of it is one of the worst, if not the worst crime I can possibly think of. In 15 states in America, a person could kill one, or 100 people, and still be allowed to live. They are forced to live in imprisonment, but they are still able to breathe the air you and I breathe, and see the light and feel the warmth of the sun. In my heart, I feel like there is something wrong with that. Those are privileges that I feel should not be given to murderers. I wish there was some suitable punishment for murder other than death, but I cannot think of any that is harsh enough for the likes of such a criminal. Perhaps the death penalty is the only way to deal with murderers, so that the world can be rid of such an evil. No matter how harsh it sounds, for now, I think the death penalty should be added to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The whole court system imposing death penalty stuff is something not to be taken lightly. It depends on the severity of the criminal's crime but this argument or "dispute" will never end. Just like Charlotte said, what if you were related or knew a victim of a criminal that was horribly killed or injured or scared to life by any means? How would that make you feel? Would you feel hate? Anger? Sorrow? Furious and utterly enraged? If you're going to state your opinion about the death penalty discussion you are going to have to look at both ends of the stick. Vivek brought up an interesting quote by Ghandi, "An eye for an eye will make the world go blind." Of course this saying can be interpreted in many ways but it fits just right into this discussion. It's so violent and ill of us humans to go to extreme lengths in the first place. I mean, who would be that angered by the people of this world that they would go out and kill anyone they see just because they're having a "bad day"? It's absolutely astonishing and mentally scarring to those who have not encountered an event or a person who is so angered or depressed that they would be most likely to act out in that matter. I am neutral in this situation because there is so many circumstances that take place in this blog and it would be unwise of me to not look at from all sides. Lets say I am on trial because I was so angry at the world that I could not control myself and did some horrific crime to who knows what extreme that I am faced with the possibility of being sentenced to death. I for one would prefer dying than rotting in jail for the low life creature that "I am" (example only). I mean really, who would want to be sentenced to life in jail? I'm not talking about like 25 years in prison but LIFE IMPRISONMENT. I would take the easy route. But that's just me. Many would agree that I should die or I should rot in jail. It just depends on who you're asking. For example if you ask a religious person who thinks killing is an unforgivable sin, right? What would Jesus do? I don't think Jesus would support the death penalty. That's just me but it's an exceptional topic to bring up.
I for one do not think that our court system has the right to impose the death penalty on any criminal. No matter how severe the crime is, noone besides God has the right to take away anyone's life. In my eyes, i think that God was the one to give us life, so he should be the only one that has the authority to take it away. I agree with Bianca when she states that this penalty is barbaric. However bad the crime is, gives no reason for death to be brought upon them. Having 35 states upholding the death penalty is astonishing in my eyes. Simply for the fact that it is more than half of the United States that is still having the death penalty in use.
There are some people on the other hand that are for this penalty. I agree with Ashley and Bianca when they say that some views may be"an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Most of the time a victim's family will agree with the death penalty becuase it is simply for revenge. But what the family does not understand is that sending the criminal to death sentence is not going to bring their family member back. All it is doing is letting the criminal get away with the crime easy.
As both Emma and Ashley stated that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to all human rights. Most importantly the right to live. So if the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is still being put into use, there is no such room for death penalties. It is basically contradicting itself because the UDHR is stating the right to live so it can not go back on its word and uphold death penalties. Everyone is born with equal rights based on the UDHR so killing someone is taking these rights away. Causing them to be treated unequally. So in conclusion I think that the death penalties should be taken away from all states.
ecanancy@hotmail.com
I agree with Ashley when she says many people believe in an eye for an eye. Even before colonial times, people used this philosophy to solve many criminal related issues. But you never heard of a rapist getting raped, or a thief getting stolen from, so why does this apply to the death penalty. But I believe that the death penalty is is okay given the situation. Yes, taking someone's life is wrong, but at the same time taking that person's life does not necessarily make it right. Depending on the severity of what is done should determine on when the death penalty is instituted. For example, serial killers should be put to death because they basically show no remorse, because of the effort they made to do what they did. But, I disagree with Danny and Raechel when they say putting someone to death is a "get out of jail free card." When you think about it, it kind of is, but justice must be served. And to have those people do what they did, and not put them to death is injustice. Those people should know what it feels like, and have what they did done to them. Depending on what they did, a painful death should be instored for them. Even though the eight amendment is against cruel and unsual punishment, what does it mean to those people who deliberately violated it. The death penalty is a sentence that should be instituted, but it should be circumstantial.
Life itself is something that can not be given,preserved and is sometimes unpredictable. Doctors can "try" to preserve life,but no one is immortal and we all die at some time. Mothers and fathers can try and "make" life but at the end of the day there is no guarantee that anything will come from this attempt. The fact that human beings are not gifted with this power, makes the most serious crime killing.
As a result I believe that the court system has the right to impose the death penalty on criminal who harm the well fair of another persons life. I think that people generally commit acts when in a situation where the consquences are not high. If the states impose the death penalty less criminal would act out(many still would). I agreed completely with Lizzy's statement,"..ensure that the death penalty is applied fairly..". Unlike the 1630s we have enough technogy to be able to tell more accuratly when someone is guilty, such as fingerprinting. As the judical branch has come up with many loop holes that offer criminal a way to get around certain crimes. An example being killing for self defense, abortion and etc. As a result I believe that these loop hole would help weed some of the more demeanor criminals. "All man are created equal", and because America "tries" to be fair criminals who has taken the lives of another should be given the "equal" fate which would be death.Therefore the death penalty should be intact and carried out with complete and the utter most attenion and not given lightly.
No, I do not believe the justice system has a right to enforce the death penalty because no one should have a right to decide if somebody should live or die. I think jail time is enough for a criminal, they shouldn't die for it. This also creates another form of crime obstacle. Secondly, it provides another deterrent for prisoners that are already serving a life sentence. Overall, enforcing the death penalty contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system.
“An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” a life for a life; the death penalty should be enforced everywhere. Having the death penalty does three things. First, it lowers the crime rates, because the murders are now going to die if they are caught. Also it scarier than just being locked up for life. Secondly, it saves money; it is cheaper to kill a murderer than keep him in a nice jail for the rest of his life. Saving money is a major priority. In Texas, it costs only 86 dollars to kill a criminal, while instead of paying 30,000 dollars to keep them alive. Lastly, everybody keeps on saying that there are different situations, but I only see one, if you killed a person no matter what kind of situation, way or type, he/ or she deserves to die, if found guilty.
The court system should use the death penalty, more. Since the colonial times there has only been 13,000 legal death punishments, as opposed to tens of thousands murders. Just as the constitution says, all men are created equal, but then why is the death penalty only in effect in 35 out of the 50 states of America. This is not setting everybody equal. Then this punishment should apply to everybody, in order to make it equal. The Universal Declaration of Human beings says that everybody is equal, and like Bianca says, “killing someone means you are not treating them as equals,” personally I interpret it this way, if somebody kills someone, then they do not deserve to be treated as a human being therefore giving them such a penalty is okay.
The death penalty should be enforced no matter what, just think, of taking a person’s life away forever and you get to live.
joepedo@ymail.com
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that we shall all be born free and with rights. Today many people might argue that the death penalty is out of proportion according to the UDHR but some states still use it. I believe that the death penalty should be used based on the accusations. It should be uses on killers and others trying to harm the world. For example, it would be smart to sentence a mass murderer to the death penalty and kill him (one person) rather than have him kill much more. If he/she are already a threat to society than he/she should be dealt with in these drastic measures. It is better to kill one and save 100 than to kill 100 and save one. They do not even have anything to live for because once he/she is captured, they are put in jail until he/she dies anyway.
I believe that every state should enforce the death penalty because it is necessary and is a very smart way to get rid of all the bad people in the world.
Grlzluvemplaya1@aim.com
I feel that the death penalty is completely right to use in certain cases. If someone takes someone elses life unlawfully why shouldn`t their life be taken. Like sai i feel bad about the death penalty but i feel its very effective. Also hopefully if people are afraid of it they wont commit murders.
Post a Comment