Death Penalty Ethics: Opposed Positions

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Death penalty as the punishment still exists in many states and countries. There at least two strongly opposed positions in the direction to this problem, whether death penalty is ethical or unethical issue. To be concrete, the death penalty is considered as deserving treatment for those who have conducted a crime equal to it and those who support this kind of crime are sure that it is ethical and must be continues.

However, there are a lot of people who believe that death penalty is unethical and too cruel crime which has nothing in common with humanism. Having conducted a research and having created a personal point of view, I want to state that death penalty is the crime which is conducted in the relation to a human being and the capital punishment is to be prohibited.

Death penalty is a crime in many reasons, the most strong of them are as follows:

the death penalty is to be prohibited as a person suffers emotionally because he/she knows time, place and the way he/she is going to die;
people want that the death penalty is to make the criminals feel the same the victims did, however it is impossible in the modern society, as the relatives of the victim may never make a criminal to suffer what the victims had to, that is why the death penalty never reaches its initial purpose and cannot relieve the pain of the relatives of the victims;
any punishment is aimed at corrections, and the capital punishment is presupposed to help people change (in accordance with this logic), but death punishment does not reduce the number of crimes and the criminals learn nothing.

There are three main reasons which point at the fact that death penalties are to be prohibited.

The death penalty is to be prohibited as it is unethical and cruel to make a person suffer emotionally. One who is subjected to the final punishment knows time, place and the way he/she is going to die in advance and it is inhuman to make people suffer so much. It is one of the reasons why death penalty is to be prohibited in the society.

It is too cruel to make people suffer so much even if they are criminals. I do not want to try to justify the murders and other specific types of crimes which are punished with death penalty, however, it is important to understand that the intentional desire to harm others, to make sure that those are going to suffer only because of the idea that they are going to be killed inappropriate for the civilized society.

Alarcón and Mitchell in their research devoted to legal consideration whether to prohibit death punishment in California or to leave as it is state that “a petitioner facing execution cannot complain that the lengthy delay involved in pursuing post-conviction remedies violates the Eighth Amendment, because such a petitioner is considered responsible for the lengthy delay by virtue of having chosen that path” (Alarcón and Mitchell S172). In California, people may wait for 25 years from the day of the verdict to the execution (Uelmen 496).

The emotional suffering may be seen in the series Charmed where Phoebe sees her death in the future when she is burned like a witch. Such awareness makes her emotionally unstable and she wants to go in the future to see what is going to happen. The suffering she experiences cannot be compared with anything.

It is really unethical to leave such means of punishment as the crimes people conduct may be done in the state of affection, despair and other feelings. Criminals do not inform their victims in advance and the desire to make criminals to be aware of their last days cannot be justified. Of course, it is impossible to justify the criminals and no one wants to do it, still, the problem remains and the civilized world cannot accept it.

However, there are people who believe this is exactly the measure and the suffering people are to experience it may make the criminals to feel the same what the victims felt. Such contradictory argument may deserve attention only in case a victim knew in advance that he/she is going to be killed.

Such situations happened many times when serial killers informed their victims in the near death and did all possible to make sure that a person is going to be terrified and any extra movement is going to be full of fear. One of the examples of such case may be read in the world literature, in the story The Curse of the Golden Cross by G. K. Chesterton presented in the collection of short stories The Incredulity of Father Brown.

The main character, there was followed by a sick person who wanted to do all possible to get the golden cross stolen by the archeologists (Chesterton 106). The story ended without the murder of the person who was followed, however, in case of the killing, the murder could be subjected to the capital punishment to make sure that he suffers the same his victim felt.

Insisting on the death penalty, people want to make the criminals feel the same the victims did. It is impossible in the modern society, as the relatives of the victim may never make a criminal to suffer what the victims had to, that is why the death penalty never reaches its initial purpose and cannot relieve the pain of the relatives of the victims.

Considering the examples of the most severe crimes, it will be possible to assist on the impossibility of the death penalty to create the same conditions as the victims did. For example, the terrible and inhuman “butchering of 27-year-old Anthony Braccia during a robbery” (Shifrel 3) in September 5, 2005 will never be able to use as the pattern for the death penalty. We live in the modern world and people are unable to conduct such crimes.

Moreover, it is impossible to imagine the legislation where a person is going to be convicted for the terrible crime he/she has conducted by means of the same penalty. Modern civilized society is not going to subject a criminal for butchering even though this is exactly the crime he convicted. And what about Lawrence King, a fifteen year old boy who was killed in the computer lab by a fellow student (Cathcart 6)?

The suffering parents experience cannot even be imagined, however, is the shot of the criminal the way out? Will the boy be punished for his/her crime is he/she is killed? The situations are numerous and only several of relatives are ready to explain what they feel as it is too complicated.

Look at the child, at the boy who has conducted a crime. Is it possible to do the same with him? There is no one to blame in the crime except for him, but at the same time, the responsibility of parents and teachers should not be underestimated. It is important to think about the parents, relatives and friends of the murderer. They have already been injured, are the government and other parties ready for taking such a responsibility and getting the life of one more kid?

Moreover, one of the main ideas which pursue the relatives is to revenge. But it seems impossible. Look at the feelings of the relatives who see their loving people to be killed. Too much feeling, despair, unbelief and other specific emotions which will never be forgot (Wilson n.p.). And here is the question, will the murder of the criminal in the same way as the murder of the victim was conducted help to relieve the pain of the relatives? The answer is strong and insisting, no, they will not.

Of course, there are different people and when they see the suffering of others, some of them may feel some relief. Such people may use the arguments as an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. Such vision of the reality may seem important and the most possible for them. Additionally, such people may expect that being aware of the fact that he criminal who has killed their relative has suffered the same.

Death penalties are the crimes and they are to be prohibited as any punishment is aimed at corrections, and the capital punishment is presupposed to help people change (in accordance with this logic), but death penalty does not reduce the number of crimes and the criminals learn nothing.

Remembering the movie The Green Mile directed by Frank Darabont, it is possible to use the example of “Wild Bill” Wharton who was subjected to the capital punishment, but his actions never showed that he was sorry for the crimes he conducted.

The whole movie is the explanation of the life of those who are subjected to death and for those who are to conduct the punishment. For many people it is too difficult, especially if to take into account that most of the crimes still remain and the number of punished criminal by means of death penalty does not impact the number of crimes (Clear, Reisig, and Cole 510).

Moreover, the problem of violation of the human rights is more important issue which is to be met than the imaginary statistics which tries to impose that the number of the crimes is reduced with the number of the death penalties (Sangiorgio 34).

Moreover, there is an opinion that the correction institutions are really effective, however, in case they are sure that the person does not want to correct and improve and the crime is too essential and the capital punishment may be imposed, such people may be subjected to death penalty (Williams, Walker, and Strean 60).

Of course, looking at the example of Phoebe in Charmed it is possible to predict that some people change their minds, that they recognize and accept the punishment being convinced that they have conducted a terrible crime and they are to be punished. Additionally, the statistics shows that “for each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented” (Liptak n.p.) and such activities are rather promising.

However, such people are not numerous and most criminals remain criminals. The problem is that 56.6% of American strongly support death penalties being sure that this measure may be used as the correction or it is even better from the correction (Unnever, Cullen, and Roberts 200).

Therefore, it may be concluded that that the problem where the death penalty is to be prohibited or it deserves to remain in the society remains open. Too many points of view and ideas exist in the society and people are unable to agree on the issue. My strong consideration is that criminals are also people and the civilized world should prohibit the death penalties as the punishment. The reasons for it are numerous.

First of all, one of the main ideas of the death penalty is to make sure that the criminal experiences the same feelings as the victim did, however, it is impossible to gain the same level of suffering and that is why the capital punishment becomes useless. Second, those who insist on the death penalty forget about such aspect as the waiting for the death. It is cruel to give people the date and the time of their death and to make those die.

It is too hard emotionally as victims were not given the time of their death. Finally, death penalty does not help the criminal to correct and does not impact the level of the crimes according to many research. Therefore, the death penalty is to be prohibited as the way of punishment as there are more human and ethical measures, even though being strict and deserving for the most cruel criminals.

Works Cited

Alarcón, Judge Arthur L., and Paula M. Mitchell. “Executing The Will Of The Voters?: A Roadmap To Mend Or End The California Legislature’s Multi-Billion-Dollar Death Penalty Debacle.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 44.3 (2011): S41-S224. Print.

Cathcart, Rebecca. “Boy’s Killing, Labeled a Hate Crime, Stuns a Town.” The New York Times 23 Feb. 2008, p. 6. Print.

Charmed. Dir. Aaron Spelling. Perf. Holly Marie Combs, Alyssa Milano, Rose McGowan, Shannen Doherty, Brian Krause, Dorian Gregory, Julian McMahon, Drew Fuller, Kaley Cuoco, T.W. King, Greg Vaughan and Karis Paige Bryant. Spelling Television, 1998. Film.

Chesterton, G. K. The Incredulity of Father Brown. London: House of Stratus, 2000. Print.

Clear, Todd R., Reisig, Michael D. and George F. Cole. American Corrections. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.

Liptak, Adam. “Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate.” 18 Nov. 2007. Web. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?pagewanted=all

Sangiorgio, Chiara. “The Death Penalty And Public Information On Its Use.” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 25.1/2 (2011): 33-41. Print.

Shifrel, Scott. “Killer sentenced to life; victim’s mom calls him ‘evil, vile maniac’.” Daily News 29 Sept. 2008, p. 3. Print.

The Green Mile. Dir. Frank Darabont. Perf. Tom Hanks, David Morse, Bonnie Hunt, Michael Clarke Duncan and James Cromwell. Warner Bros., 1999. Film.

Uelmen, Gerald F. “Death Penalty Appeals And Habeas Proceedings: The California Experience.” Marquette Law Review 93.2 (2009): 495-514. Print.

Unnever, James D., Cullen, Francis T. and Julian V. Roberts. “Not everyone strongly supports the death penalty: Assessing Weakly-Held Attitudes About Capital Punishment.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 29.2 (2005): 187-216. Print.

Williams, D. J., Walker, Gordon J. and William B. Strean. “Correctional Recreation On Death Row: Should Pardon Be Granted?.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 42.2 (2005): 49-67. Print.

Wilson, Michael. “What a Family Faces After a Murder: The Terrible Mechanics of the First Week.” The New York Times 28 Oct. 2011. Web. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/nyregion/what-a-family-faces-after-a-murder-the-first-week.html

Click Here To Order Now!

Death Penalty Ethics: Opposed Positions

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)