Capital punishment is one of the most controversial issues of this day in age. Some argue that it is no better than murder, while others say that this form of punishment is a better way to deter others from crime. There is a big difference from taking the life of one person out of greed, jealously, revenge or any other devious motive and taking the life of a criminal in the name of justice. The death sentence, capital punishment, may seem harsh, but so do these awful crimes that are heard everyday on the news. Capital punishment is an effective way to keep the state in order and therefore governments should be given the power to use capital punishment.
It is true that capital punishment should not be taken lightly because it does entail taking the life of another. Those who oppose the death sentence believe that it may lead to the murder of innocent people. What about the lives they took themselves? No system can be perfect, but it is the duty of the government to use this form of punishment with discretion. The cost of capital punishment can also be debated. It is said that the cost of capital punishment is greater than that of life imprisonment. There is the cost of another prison to hold those on death row plus the maintenance of that building, employees, and other miscellaneous costs. The cost should not be an issue. There is always an alternative way to save money. The cost of life imprisonment is not cheap either. The state must hold the offenders till death or when they are released for parole.
What is the job given to the government? That is a simple question; they are given the job to keep the state in order. Without rules, laws, punishment, and justice society would breakdown. The citizen’s job is to follow the authority of the government. The laws are put in place to be followed by the citizens in order to protect them. When these laws are broken, punishment is deserved, but the punishment should fit the crime, nothing more, nothing less. This means that the greater the crime, the more severe the punishment deserved. A capital crime deserves capital punishment. Such harsh punishments are put into place in order to breed in the people so these laws are followed. If capital punishment was carried out successfully then it would better serve its purpose. However, there are times when prisoners on death row are set out on parole. Those in opposition of the death penalty do not find anything wrong in this. They believe that time in jail is a rehabilitation period. Rehabilitation does not always work. How is sitting in a jail cell, receiving three meals a day, doing minimal work, and perhaps a few therapy sessions rehabilitation? Capital punishment is an effective way to keep the state in order and ensure that top offenders cannot commit such crimes again.
It is not only unlawful but also unethical to take another’s life, there is no argument there, but when a crime is committed that is so severe that the presence of this person may be harmful to the well-being of society, that person should not even have the chance to return. The only way to ensure this is through capital punishment. The protection of its citizens should be the utmost priority of the state. The death sentence may seem immoral and wrong but it is an effective measure to keep the safety of the citizens.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Lee Lee,
I read your post and marked it up in Word. I’ll email it to you shortly (I’ll get your email from Nicenet).
Lee Lee, I’ll make it clear now that I am very much against capital punishment--I’m biased against what you have to say even before you say it. Nonetheless, I’ve tried to give you a fair judgment.
In my markup, I made some excessively long comments questioning some of your points. I may or may not be proving anything in my questions, but we are not statesmen or debaters trying to definitively prove one point over another. We are students trying to write and assess arguments, and I cannot expect you to have anticipated every question that I raise. Ideally, you would, but only if you aimed to win over the hard-core liberals in your audience…like me.
My philosophic contentions aside, you constructed a pretty good argument. I would break down the possible arguments for capital punishment into three: that capital criminals “deserve” to be executed (which I interpret to mean retribution or some other emotionally charged justification), that executions are necessary to protect the public, or that executions act as a deterrence against those who might commit capital crimes. You rely primary on the principles of public protection and deterrence, which I regard to be the most solid arguments in favor of capital punishment. If I had to argue in favor of capital punishment, I would never mention anything other than cold logic, because anything but logic could be, in my opinion, undermined more easily so that, at a minimum, I would appear to be (no offense intended) barbarically vengeful. One of my biggest gripes is that you seem to lean a bit on the “deserving” argument, when I think that you should have avoided it at all costs. As for the public protection and deterrence arguments, I think you made your case fairly well.
I think you may have bordered on using scare tactics when you say that “Without rules, laws, punishment, and justice society would breakdown.” Some would argue that without the deterrence effect of capital punishment, capital crimes would increase. That is a reasonably statement if it is supported. What I take exception to is how you state that “society would break down.” Of course, you did not expressly say without capital punishment, society would disintegrate—“rules,” “laws,” everything would have to fail--but I think you leave the idea floating in your readers’ heads that society would fall without capital punishment.
You say “Those who oppose the death sentence believe that it may lead to the murder of innocent people. What about the lives they took themselves?” You really don’t refute the contention that innocents could be executed. If people were innocent, then they did not kill (or rape, spy, etc.), negating the statement of the second sentence.
Your post did not change my mind on capital punishment, but you did construct a good argument as suitable to your audience and purpose. I must also commend you for limiting the amount of pathos in your argument. While I feel that pathos can be the glaring weakness of an argument, it can have a marvelous ability to persuade. You could have gone into the graphic details of capital crimes or asked uncomfortable, unreasonable questions (“What would you do if your mother was raped?”). You did good job.
What about the people who have been wrongly convicted of a capital crime? Is it okay to put them to death? I don't have the exact information handy, but you might find it on the web. The governor of Illinois commuted the sentences of about 150 prisoners scheduled to die.
"Because the Illinois death penalty system is arbitrary and capricious - and therefore immoral - I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death," he said.
What about all the people wrongly executed? The killer still goes free.
Like I wrote in my blog no system can be perfect and that is one problem. I am not saying that I want innocent victims to be killed because of an unfair trial, but that shouldn't be the reason for banning capital punishment.
Post a Comment