How Would You Defend the Death Penalty or Do You Think Its Indefensible? Explain.?
Question by soybeansauce06: How would you defend the death penalty or do you think its indefensible? Explain.?
In his dissent in Gregg v. Georgia, Justice Brennan argues against the death penalty, calling it “official murder.” What is the basis for his conclusion? How would Kant respond to Brennan’s argument?
***I have to write a 3-5 page essay and use my terms and language in “Ethics form” because I did it in my own words and bombed my first essay…. HELP ME OUT!!!!
Best answer:
Answer by wizjp
There are some incredibly evil beings out there who are committing the most horrible crimes imaginable against the weakest and least of us. A just society demands that the only true justice for these acts is a forfeit of their own lives; and nothing less can really be called justice.
Anyone who could rape a child and then bury her alive, crying and dying in a box in the ground, crying for her mother and not understanding any of it to give himself a better chance to get away with it deserves the full penalty of the legal system.
Executed the wrong person? Has not been one case proven in modern judicial history that it has happened. Thus a long and exhausting appeals system. And I don’t say execute everyone. But it has a place in our system.
What do you think? Answer below!
Compassion, Hope & Freedom Drug Rehab Centers Georgia Florida, Freedom from Addiction –
A beleaguered leader seeks a better place for homeless, mentally ill through …
Filed under: drug treatment programs in georgia
Nearly half of them were considered chronically homeless, which means their destitution is exacerbated by their struggle with substance abuse or mental or physical disabilities. Roughly 5 percent were believed to …. In October 2011, Wilkerson says he …
Read more on NOLA.com
Ohio State to receive .7M for tobacco use, regulation research
Filed under: drug treatment programs in georgia
Ohio State will be receiving an $ 18.7 million grant from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to study tobacco use and regulation. OSU was one of 14 research centers chosen to … The other 13 centers selected to receive grants included University of …
Read more on OSU – The Lantern
3 Responses to How Would You Defend the Death Penalty or Do You Think Its Indefensible? Explain.?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
People who condone the death penalty always forget one important factor — there is no way to bring a dead person back to life when new facts prove “he/she didn’t do it”. The innocent are never convicted, huh? Well, how many death-row, wrongly convicted people have “pro-bono” lawyers managed to free due to DNA evidence in recent years? Quite a few! Strangely enough, many in Texas!
Another point NEVER mentioned. Many of these sadistic criminals are actually quite literarily insane. Why they are, who can say? Born that way? Driven that way? Is it right to kill insane people simply because their brains have gone ballistic? Hitler thought so. This is a judgment that every society has to make. In the USA, the issue is effectively skirted by almost NEVER allowing an insanity pleas. That is one way to solve the question …. just ignore it.
If the “criminal” is insane, which is better — to kill him/her — or to lock them away for life? It is your call.
The PEOPLE want the death penalty.
The Constitution EXPLICITLY allows the death penalty.
The USSC may not alter the constitution, that is left to the people and their amendatory powers
Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
“nor shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
Legally, logically, and constitutionally, WITH due process of law, a citizen of the United States, or anyone subject to our laws, may be deprived of their life, their liberty, or their property.
If people wish to remove the death penalty, then pass a valid constitutional amendment, of course, since over 2/3 of the people support the death penalty, that is not likely to happen.
whale
I’m not going to write your essay for you, but I will tell you the reasons I think the death penalty is indefensible:
1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. In the last 35 years in the U.S., 130 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These are ALL people who were found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. So, as long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much GUARANTEED to occasionally execute an innocent person.
Really, that should be reason enough for most people to oppose it. If you need more, read on:
2. Cost: Because of higher pre-trial expenses, longer trials, jury sequestration, extra expenses associated with prosecuting & defending a DP case, and the appeals process (which is necessary – see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.
3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually HIGHER in death penalty jurisdictions. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). It is probably due, at least in part, to the high cost (see #2), which drains resources from police departments, drug treatment programs, education, and other government services that help prevent crime. Personally, I think it also has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government fosters a culture of violence by saying, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’
4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) would love nothing better than to be put to death. In his words, “I have been looking to be a martyr [for a] long time.”
5. Most governments are supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. The New Testament (starring Jesus) is primarily ANTI-death penalty. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praises mercy (Matthew 5:7) and rejects “an eye for an eye” (Matthew 5:38-39). James 4:12 says that GOD is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”