why do people disagree with capital punishment

Many people believe that is morally flawed and problematic in concept and practice. The main argument that retribution is immoral is that it is just a sanitised form of vengeance. Scenes of howling mobs attacking prison vans containing those accused of murder on their way to and from court, or chanting aggressively outside prisons when an offender is being executed, suggest that vengeance remains a major ingredient in the public popularity of capital punishment. But just retribution, designed to re-establish justice, can easily be distinguished from vengeance and vindictiveness. In any case, is vengeance necessarily a bad thing? The Victorian legal philosopher James Fitzjames Stephens thought vengeance was an acceptable justification for punishment. Punishment, he thought, should be inflicted:
But the issue of the execution of innocent persons is also a problem for the retribution argument - if there is a serious risk of executing the innocent then one of the key principles of retribution - that people should get what they deserve (and therefore only what they deserve) - is violated by the current implementation of capital punishment in the USA, and any other country where errors have taken place. It's argued that retribution is used in a unique way in the case of the death penalty.


Crimes other than murder do not receive a punishment that mimics the crime - for example rapists are not punished by sexual assault, and people guilty of assault are not ceremonially beaten up. Camus and Dostoevsky argued that the retribution in the case of the death penalty was not fair, because the anticipatory suffering of the criminal before execution would probably outweigh the anticipatory suffering of the victim of their crime. Others argue that the retribution argument is flawed because the death penalty delivers a 'double punishment'; that of the execution and the preceding wait, and this is a mismatch to the crime. Many offenders are kept 'waiting' on death row for a very long time; in the USA the average wait is 10 years. In Japan, the accused are only informed of their execution moments before it is scheduled. The result of this is that each day of their life is lived as if it was their last. Some lawyers argue that capital punishment is not really used as retribution for murder, or even consistently for a particular kind of murder. They argue that, in the USA at least, only a small minority of murderers are actually executed, and that imposition of capital punishment on a "capriciously selected random handful" of offenders does not amount to a consistent programme of retribution.


Since capital punishment is not operated retributively, it is inappropriate to use retribution to justify capital punishment. This argument would have no value in a society that applied the death penalty consistently for particular types of murder. Some people who believe in the notion of retribution are against capital punishment because they feel the death penalty provides insufficient retribution. They argue that life imprisonment without possibility of parole causes much more suffering to the offender than a painless death after a short period of imprisonment. Another example is the planner of a suicide bombing - execution might make that person a martyr, and therefore would be a lesser retribution than life imprisonment. Florida is planning to carry out its first execution in more than a year and a half. б Governor Rick Scott issued a death warrant that reschedulesб for 24 August at 6pm. б We must challenge the notion of an eye for an eye and here are five reasons why. 1. You can t take it back The death penalty is irreversible. Absolute judgments may lead to people paying for crimes they did not commit. Texas man was executed in Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three daughters.


Following his execution, further evidence revealed that Willingham did not set the fire that caused their deaths. But it came too late. 2. It doesn t deter criminals There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than a prison term. In fact, evidence startlingly reveals the opposite. Twenty seven years after abolishing the death penalty, Canada saw a 44 per cent drop in murders across the country. And it wasn t alone. Twenty seven years after abolishing the death penalty, Canada saw a 44 per cent drop in murders across the country. 3. There s no humane way to kill The 2006 execution of Angel Nieves Diaz, by a so-called humane lethal injection, took 34 minutes and required two doses. Other brutal methods of execution used around the world include hanging, shooting and beheading. The nature of these deaths only continues to perpetuate the cycle of violence and does not alleviate the pain already suffered by the victimsБ family. 4. It makes a public spectacle of an individual s death Executions are often undertaken in an extremely public manner, with public hangings in Iran or live broadcasts of lethal injections in the US. According to UN human rights experts, executions in public serve no legitimate purpose and only increase the cruel, inhuman and degrading nature of this punishment.


БAll executions violate the right to life. Those carried out publicly are a gross affront to human dignity which cannot be tolerated,Б said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty InternationalБs Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa. All executions violate the right to life. Those carried out publicly are a gross affront to human dignity which cannot be tolerated. 5. The death penalty is disappearing While executions spiked in 2015, they were counterbalanced by a spate of abolitions. Four countries abolished the death penalty for all crimes Б the highest number to do so in the space of one year for almost a decade. These developments are a clear indication that the trend towards abolition remains strong. Today, 103 countries have turned their backs on the death penalty for good. Those that continue to execute are a tiny minority standing against a wave of opposition. There are countless arguments for and against the death penalty. In an imperfect world where we can never be sure we have ever got the worst of the worst is it ever justified to take a life?

  • Views: 36

why do we use the death penalty
why do you oppose the death penalty
why do we still have the death penalty
why do we have the death penalty in the us
why do we have the death penalty
why do people agree with the death penalty
why is capital punishment an ethical issue