Opposing Views of the Death Penalty

Introduction

The death penalty is the act of executing someone as discipline for particular wrongdoing after a lawful trial (Gius 200). The death penalty exacted in the discipline has been a fervent issue in the US. Those who support the death penalty believe it is just and moral because it provides retribution as a feeling of consolation to the victim’s friends, family, and society. They also suggest capital punishment is a deterrent to murder and an economic alternative to prolong life imprisonment. However, those who contradict the death penalty contend that capital punishment is shameful, unethical, and should not be implemented. They believe retaliation is not a response for mending the hearts of the victim’s family. Consequently, capital punishment is not an adequate contrasting option of life imprisonment because it conveys the likelihood of wrongful execution. This paper will discuss the opposing views of capital punishment.

Critical Argument

Critics of capital punishment see it as one more word for exact vengeance and the craving for revenge is one of the most reduced human feelings, maybe justifiable, but it is not an objective reaction to a critical circumstance (Richards and Dwayne 199). The desire to utilize viciousness for one’s purpose should be resisted. To kill the individual who has executed somebody is to proceed with the cycle of viciousness, which demolishes the avenger and the guilty party. Articulating one’s brutality strengthens the craving to express it. Thus, it smears the cooperative attitude that humans need to advance in adoration and comprehension.

People regularly mistake retaliation with vengeance. Vengeance is defined as an act that inflicts hurt on the wrongdoer out of outrage due to what he or she has done. Retribution does not depend on disdain for the criminal; however, the sentiment of retaliation may go with the discipline. Thus, retribution is the hypothesis that the criminal merits to be rebuffed and should be rebuffed to the extent to the gravity of his or her wrongdoing, regardless of whether the victim or any other individual wants it. Thus, critics may lament carrying out the discipline, but it is justified. When the law neglects to punish lawbreakers in a path thought to be proportionate to the gravity of the wrongdoing, the peril emerges that the general population would bring the law into its hands, causing lynch hordes and private demonstrations of revenge. The result will probably be a revolutionary and unreliable condition of bad form.

As indicated by this contention, certain individuals should be executed as repayment for the abominable done (Richards and Dwayne 200). There are crimes so hostile that executing the offender is an appropriate punishment. It is an argument if substantial would refute the reason for human rights. If a man who commits a horrendous crime “deserves” the death penalty of death, then people can be executed without trial. It is important to note that human rights are inalienable. The right to life cannot be taken away because of the crime. Human rights apply to the most exceedingly bad character and the best, which is the reason they ensure everyone is covered. Thus, the argument for retribution is a mere desire for retaliation covered as a justification for equity. The longing for retaliation can be comprehended and recognized, however, the act of retaliation must be resisted. However, capital punishment is an important and suitable discipline.

Critics argue that “revenge” killing is an unworthy reason for a tough punishment (Sethuraju et al. 4). One cannot dismiss the death penalty because it is revenge. It is important to classify whether it is a fitting type of reprisal. People concur there should be an effective punishment for heinous crimes. This obligation makes the death penalty a need when nothing else fills in as a genuine discipline for heinous crimes. Everybody would likewise concur that other than forcing some discipline for a crime, the law should enforce a significant punishment. Fixing a fee or cost of life would not be an appropriate punishment for murder. Thus, one cannot enforce fines on killers since it would truly deplore the estimation of human life. After a killer has executed a specific number of casualties, he or she achieves a point where the main important retribution is capital punishment. There are murders for which elective sentences of detainment are absurd.

Conclusion

The support for the death penalty emphasizes it is a just and moral act. The act provides a justification for a crime committed and provides solace to the families of the victim. Consequently, enforcing capital punishment is a deterrent to the more heinous crime. Economically, capital punishment is an alternative to prolong imprisonment. The three reasons for capital punishment are reintegration, discouragement, and justice. While reintegration is excessive as for the death penalty, that punishment deters crime. The essential support for the death penalty is retaliation. Outrage is the slant stirred by injustice and aligns with equity. As an activity in reprisal, capital punishment serves to correct the balance of injustice that is exasperated by the wrongdoing.

Works Cited

Gius, Mark. “The Impact of the Death Penalty and Executions on State-Level Murder Rates: 1980–2011.” Journal of Applied Economics Letters, vol. 23, no. 3, 2015, pp. 199-201.

Richards, Tara, and Dwayne Smith. “Current Issues and Controversies in Capital Punishment.” American Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 199-203.

Sethuraju, Raj, et al. “Understanding Death Penalty Support and Opposition among Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Students.” SAGE Open, vol. 6, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-15.