Hey everyone wrote a essay regarding pro death penalty just seeing everyone's opinion regarding the essays structure and content thank you for the feedback in advance:
The Oldest Trick In the Book
Capital punishment goes hand and hand with the start with civilized society. The earliest record of capital punishment can be traced back to King Hammurabi of Babylon in the eighteenth century who created the code of Hammurabi, which outlined two hundred and eighty two laws and their subsequent punishments if broken. While we have come a long way since the times of Hammurabi, capital punishment is still existent in our modern society and plays a crucial role in regulating those who would seek to violate another's right to life. Louis P. Pojman makes a great case for why capital punishment is necessary component of society. His argument revolves around the fact that, "...each person has a right to life" (Pojman, p.389). Intuitively, then it is right to say if an offender violates someone's right to life the offender is to be held accountable for his or her action and receive a punishment proportional to his or her crime. With that taken into account the capital punishment of someone who violated an innocent person's life is justifiable whether its painless or not. The innocent person who's life was abruptly ended most likely suffered in their last moments so why shouldn't the offender? In the case of Clarence E. Hill and others who violate the lives of innocent people I find capital punishment is tolerable even if it inflicts pain. My argument is that capital punishment is necessary for society for the reasons of retributivism and for the sanctity of society and whether it causes pain upon the offender is irrelevant because they have essentially forfeited their "right to life," by violating another's.
Retributivism refers to the view that offenders deserve to be punished, or "paid back," for their crimes. As a human being even if you subscribe to religion or not we all grow up with a moral compass, which we abide by. One guiding rule that majority of people follow is the golden rule, which states "...we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us if we were in their shoes" (Pojman, p. 393). This principle can be seen as an eye for an eye, which I feel, is a just assessment. Why ought a victim of murder or rape be made to suffer while the perpetrator of the crime be let off from the death penalty because it inhumane? Was their act not inhumane? I think its proper and just for offenders to be sentenced to death penalty and if they do feel pain through the process it's acceptable because it would be proportional with what their victims would have went through. Furthermore, not only does the actions of the offender affect the victim it affects the family of the victim in the case of a heinous act. Through the offender receiving the death penalty it is allows the family to feel justice has been served and the punishment of the offender will bring closure. Opponents of capital punishment may see retributivism as revenge however retribution isn't fueled malice revenge is personal retribution is indifferent. Pojman makes a wonderful point stating, "...retribution is not personal but based on objective factors: the criminal deliberately harmed an innocent party and so deserves to be punished" (Pojman p. 393). Retribution is meant to be swift and restore the balance that is stolen when an offender commits grotesque acts against innocents and if there is pain administered through this process so be it.
When someone commits a murder or rape they not only rob the victim of their life and innocence they also rob society of its sanctity. When an offender violates the social norms of our society they tip the scale in their favor and it unfairly instills fear and uncertainty throughout our society. When the death penalty is administered it helps tip the scale back in the favor of society. Think when a heinous crime occurs in your community it subsequently alters the way you live your life until the crime is solved. You no longer feel safe in your surroundings because the offender has instilled a sense of fear and robs the sanctity of your society. In the attempt to return to a balance of society I feel it is just for the offender of morality to feel some of the same pain that they exacted on both their victims and society. There is some debate that the death penalty can be seen as cruel and unusual punishment however my retort to that statement is isn't the senseless death of victims cruel and unusual? If the victims of these heinous crimes can suffer painful deaths why is it wrong for the offender to suffer the same fate?
The Oldest Trick In the Book
Capital punishment goes hand and hand with the start with civilized society. The earliest record of capital punishment can be traced back to King Hammurabi of Babylon in the eighteenth century who created the code of Hammurabi, which outlined two hundred and eighty two laws and their subsequent punishments if broken. While we have come a long way since the times of Hammurabi, capital punishment is still existent in our modern society and plays a crucial role in regulating those who would seek to violate another's right to life. Louis P. Pojman makes a great case for why capital punishment is necessary component of society. His argument revolves around the fact that, "...each person has a right to life" (Pojman, p.389). Intuitively, then it is right to say if an offender violates someone's right to life the offender is to be held accountable for his or her action and receive a punishment proportional to his or her crime. With that taken into account the capital punishment of someone who violated an innocent person's life is justifiable whether its painless or not. The innocent person who's life was abruptly ended most likely suffered in their last moments so why shouldn't the offender? In the case of Clarence E. Hill and others who violate the lives of innocent people I find capital punishment is tolerable even if it inflicts pain. My argument is that capital punishment is necessary for society for the reasons of retributivism and for the sanctity of society and whether it causes pain upon the offender is irrelevant because they have essentially forfeited their "right to life," by violating another's.
Retributivism refers to the view that offenders deserve to be punished, or "paid back," for their crimes. As a human being even if you subscribe to religion or not we all grow up with a moral compass, which we abide by. One guiding rule that majority of people follow is the golden rule, which states "...we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us if we were in their shoes" (Pojman, p. 393). This principle can be seen as an eye for an eye, which I feel, is a just assessment. Why ought a victim of murder or rape be made to suffer while the perpetrator of the crime be let off from the death penalty because it inhumane? Was their act not inhumane? I think its proper and just for offenders to be sentenced to death penalty and if they do feel pain through the process it's acceptable because it would be proportional with what their victims would have went through. Furthermore, not only does the actions of the offender affect the victim it affects the family of the victim in the case of a heinous act. Through the offender receiving the death penalty it is allows the family to feel justice has been served and the punishment of the offender will bring closure. Opponents of capital punishment may see retributivism as revenge however retribution isn't fueled malice revenge is personal retribution is indifferent. Pojman makes a wonderful point stating, "...retribution is not personal but based on objective factors: the criminal deliberately harmed an innocent party and so deserves to be punished" (Pojman p. 393). Retribution is meant to be swift and restore the balance that is stolen when an offender commits grotesque acts against innocents and if there is pain administered through this process so be it.
When someone commits a murder or rape they not only rob the victim of their life and innocence they also rob society of its sanctity. When an offender violates the social norms of our society they tip the scale in their favor and it unfairly instills fear and uncertainty throughout our society. When the death penalty is administered it helps tip the scale back in the favor of society. Think when a heinous crime occurs in your community it subsequently alters the way you live your life until the crime is solved. You no longer feel safe in your surroundings because the offender has instilled a sense of fear and robs the sanctity of your society. In the attempt to return to a balance of society I feel it is just for the offender of morality to feel some of the same pain that they exacted on both their victims and society. There is some debate that the death penalty can be seen as cruel and unusual punishment however my retort to that statement is isn't the senseless death of victims cruel and unusual? If the victims of these heinous crimes can suffer painful deaths why is it wrong for the offender to suffer the same fate?