Capital Punishment

In the past "capital" in the term capital punishment, referred to the person's head, which would be severed to deliver death. In current days, Capital punishment takes a new meaning bringing with it moral and ethical questions. The main reason for this argument being, "is it justifiable?" Can the death of a person, though a criminal, be beneficial for society as well as justifiable or does it corrupt the values of the people and lead them in the wrong direction?

In my paper, I will take an unorthodox point of view arguing for the implementation of the death penalty. I will establish a clear-cut profile for a criminal to be eligible for death row. I will put forth arguments for and against the death penalty as supported by various groups and try to defend my position. I shall also try to criticize the case against the death penalty with individual arguments. Finally, I will demonstrate that no alternative to capital punishment can be reached and try to convince you for its fairness. Despite ethical and moral concerns, the issue of capital punishment must not be dismissed without serious consideration and scrutiny.

Is our judiciary system working the way it is suppose to? Many people and countries are convinced that the judiciary system of the United States is a joke. While law may be rigid and defined, there are a number of loopholes which allow criminals to be set free into the streets. One such loophole has the death penalty in its eyes. In my opinion, criminals who commit a heinous crime should be put on death row and they should be executed as soon as possible without having the slights chance to end back up in society.

What type of criminals would meet the criteria for death row? Should every lawbreaker, from a thief to murderer, be sentenced to such a harsh punishment? Absolutely not. In fact, I propose that it is the very extreme felons that should face this penalty. Murderers are the only ones that should be sentenced to death. As a matter of fact, I believe, it is only mass murderers that should confront this penalty. While murder is inexcusable, there are a number of ways in which a guilty party might not have been in full control nor done so with a different intent. Crimes of passion, for example is one such case where one may be compelled to murder, drunk driving and other driving accidents that cause fatalities. Another example could be seen in cases of revenge, such as killing a rapist. Where as such murderers should be punished accordingly, they do not deserve a death penalty.

On the other hand, planned

violence geared toward a group of induvilas rather than a single person must be penalized. Most murders that are seen today come on the mass scale. News reports are full of stories such as the "Oklahoma City Bomber", who killed over one hundred people by bombs. One more recent story was the "Sniper" story, where two people were ending the lives of people almost every day and their count went well past ten. Such individuals should be removed from society by being executed as soon they are found guilty.

Many ethical concerns arise when the issues of the death penalty is brought into the public eye. Some people argue it is morally wrong to kill a person while others believe that the authorities should maintain an iron fist and not be lenient. So what are the most common arguments that are used to defend the death penalty as well as attack its validity? (I shall try to avoid religious beliefs because while every religion might have similar practices, not every religion is exactly the same in terms of its views on the discussed issue. Moreover, while the Christian bible stated "thou shall not kill" it also requires a death penalty for wide variety of crimes of crime ranging from doing work on Saturday to murder. Nonetheless, while there are many religion- based objections, one that even non-believers argue is playing the role of God.) Let us focus on a more human-oriented point of view. Common reason against the death penalty include negative effective effects on society, lack of deterrence, value of human life, unfairness and chance of error. Also the family of the family of the prisoner comes into play, in addition to lack of jury convections (Constanzo, Mark). On the other side of the spectrum is justice, vengeance, deterrence, value of human life, cost and safety (Constanzo, Mark). Tough certain

aspects of pro's and con's intervene such as value of human life, cost and deterrence, opinions on these point are very different. A closer look at this reason will let us determine a more educated position on the matter.

I will juxtapose and argument the death penalty with its parallel from the supporting side and whenever such does not apply, I will provide my own criticism of the position. First,