November 18, 2013
The Game of Morals The death penalty has been a great debate in recent years and the opposing sides have emerged to be morals or ethics versus cold hard logic. Both debates have valid points but this is an issue that each individual must figure out for themselves where they stand. The pros for the death penalty are economical, and also progressive. Progressive in the sense that the benefits of the death penalty are not immediate but they are seen down the line. The major con for the death penalty is that it is seen to many as immoral, because many believe that putting someone to death is wrong. Advocates against the death penalty believe that by allowing the death penalty wrongfully gives the government the ability to take the lives. Roughly 63% of Americans support the death penalty for convicted murderers so in this democratic county, would the government is wrong in allowing the death penalty (Saad)? The death penalty should be allowed in select circumstances, there are circumstances that most would agree deserve the death penalty.
The death penalty without a doubt has immoral implications to it but they do not outweigh the justice that the death penalty implements. The death penalty should be used in select circumstances such as premeditated murder. By definition premeditated murder is when the killing of another individual is planned and done so without regard of the other individual’s life. The death penalty fits this crime because the justice system demands for a punishment that fits the crime. In this case a person who willingly and knowingly took another individuals life has therefore forfeited their life to be judged, and tried. The death penalty is the only fair sentence for a murderer because of their actions. Those that oppose the death sentence could argue that this is morally wrong to kill this individual, but isn’t wrong to deny retribution to the loved ones of the victim?
The death penalty is more than just a sentence that the law uses as punishment but can also be a strong deterrent. It is human nature to fear mortality and that is why if the death penalty was better exercised, it may prevent other from committing such violent crimes. Along with being a deterrent, the death penalty would cover for our flawed prison system. An example of our flawed system can be seen in the case of Marlon Ricks, a convicted murderer who was released to commit violent crimes again. Ricks spent 20 years in prison after violently murdering his stepfather and assaulting a woman, in 1990. He was released in 2011 but roughly a year later he was charged for the murder of a Danielle Coleman very violently. Had the death penalty been a factor he may not have been able to serve his sentence to only return and take the live of another individual. Advocates against the death penalty may claim that everyone deserves a second chance there may have been circumstances for the original incident. In cases such as this it is clear that even a 20 year sentence to prison did not do much to change a psychopath’s behavior. The rehabilitation system is not the best deterrent for murderers, and has not statistically proven to be very effective. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics “during 2007, a total of 1,180,469 persons on parole were at-risk of reincarceration” (“Recidivism”). Though the prison system is a possible solution for the epidemic of criminals, but it has not been an effective deterrent which the death penalty can be. The justification of the death penalty is also a huge issue within the argument about implementing the death penalty. Advocates against the death penalty strongly argue that there may inaccuracies in the judging process. There may not be enough evidence or support to give certain individuals the death penalty because there is no coming back from it. This argument can be countered in that, DNA analyzing system have been