Thursday, August 23, 2012
Death and Justice?
During the first week of school, we have read two articles with contrasting opinions about whether the death penalty is just or unjust. Indeed, David Bruck and Ed Koch have very different views. However, what do you think? Taking into consideration the arguments of these two thinkers and our discussion in class, do you think the death penalty is ever an appropriate form of punishment? In crafting your answer, please respond in 7-10 thoughtful and well-written sentences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the death penalty is an appropriate form of punishment. The second essay points out that there have been many cases where someone wrongly served time for a crime. If someone was falsely sentenced to the death penalty, there would be no way to undo that. The first essay claims that the death penalty is the only punishment severe enough to prevent murders. I think that a life sentence in prison would be just as severe. Additionally, the death penalty doesn't just punish the murderer, it punishes anyone who cares about or loves the murderer. A mother would have to deal with knowing her child is a killer and then having her child killed. If the killer went to jail his loved ones wouldn't be deprived of seeing him.
ReplyDeleteIn a country where there are tons of court cases a day, and a prison population excess of one million people, there are bound to be a few cases where somebody is wrongly convicted. If a wrongly prosecuted person ends up doing a year of jail time, it does not matter. Sure it is unfair, and they would probably be pretty angry but eventually they will get over it and go back to their lives. Capitol punishment on the other hand is a different story. There is no undoing death. When someone goes to court it is often the case that they plead innocent and a prosecutor tries to prove them guilty. In this situation it is impossible to be one hundred percent sure if the defendant is guilty, you can make a guess and many times juries do make the guess to send someone to jail. But if the guess is over someone’s life, even if only one out of one million guesses are wrong, I think the one innocent life ended by their own government makes me think the death penalty is wrong and that we should not support it.
ReplyDelete--------Connor Mashman
I would lean toward not having the death penalty because it really isn’t necessary in my opinion. If a person commits murder, the most important thing to do is to make sure that they don’t do it again, and a life sentence works fine. Long-term imprisonment should have the purpose of keeping civilians safe, not disciplining the convicted. The death penalty is just killing someone for the heck of it. Also, if someone falsely accused is put to death, it cannot be fixed, which according to the second article, happens quite frequently. The execution of an innocent person is as bad as murder. Besides, when a killer is in jail for life, they can’t do any damage. And because the killer wouldn’t be able to hurt anyone anyway, only bad can come from the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteI think that killing people is really wrong, and also it's really risky. You could get the wrong person by mistake. But sometimes it can be necessary, like if they are trying to kill you. There are people who argue death for death and want to be laid to rest, but we never know whether that person has suddenly become innocent and won't kill again. If they do change, then we've have basically executed an almost innocent person. However, sometimes it is needed because that person is just deranged and will kill everybody if they could. The point is that you can never be sure whether they will or won't kill without good reason again. Therefore I take an interesting stand on the death penalty because I believe that sometimes it is the right thing to do and other times it is not.
ReplyDeleteI think that the death penalty is not a just form of punishment because killing is wrong no matter who does it. No matter how much power the government may have, no law can justly give anyone the right to take somebody else's life. I also think that a life sentence in jail would act as a deterrent to most potential murderers and that the potential murderers who go through with their crime most likely would have done so even with the threat of the death penalty. There is also no way to compare how many murders have been prevented by the death penalty versus how many murders have been prevented by the punishment of a life sentence. In addition, there is always a chance that a mistake will be made by the deciding jury and an innocent person will be convicted. When this happens there is no way to right the wrong of taking someone's life. Historically, there is also evidence that the death penalty has been disproportionately enforced on minorities. Though this point is hard to prove, it does at least bring to question whether people are actually executed for justice or merely for bloodlust.
ReplyDeleteThe death penalty has many pros as well as cons, but i believe it is necessary to ensure that killers dont murder innocent people. The fear of death can make even the worst criminals scared to kill. Without a death penalty convicts are not frightened with the thought of going to jail, knowing that they will be released eventually. A family whose loved one was just murdered would mourn and mourn knowing that the one who took the life of their loved one is still out there. The death penalty provides closure and allows these families to mourn in peace. Many people say that the death penalty is inhumane and unethical but over the years we have created many painless and humane ways to execute convicts. There have been cases where a wrongfully convicted person had been given the death penalty. Unfortunately we cant take back death but using modern DNA testing and other modern tests to determine who commited the crime, we can prevent future disasters like in the past and punish those who deserve it.
ReplyDeleteI am against the death penalty because it seems unreasonable. Of course if one commits a heinous crime they should be punished, but actually taking their life away does not seem like a proper way of punishing someone who is being accused. To begin with, a murderer gets in trouble for killing a person, so that makes it okay for the government to then kill another person? No. There are many other ways of punishing a criminal, like a life sentence. A life sentence would ensure the safety of the public and let the victims know that it wouldn't happen again. Koch talks about how the "regard for the victim will be lessened" but thats not true of course. Just catching a murderer and locking him up shows that they cared and did something about it. Another issue with the death penalty, which was mentioned in the second essay, was the fact that so many people are wrongfully convicted. If a person was convicted of committing a crime and sentenced to 10 years and then at the end of their sentence was found innocent that would be awful. They would have lost 10 years of their life, but if a person was accused and killed because of the death penalty and THEN was found innocent, it would be devastating. You cannot bring people back to life, which so many people already regret.. why add more?
ReplyDeleteThe Death Penalty has many pros and cons, I believe that the death penalty deters crime and should be used. People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter crime more than the fear of being killed, so if they know that the death penalty will be used, they will think twice about committing the crime. The convicts kept in prison can do even more damage behind bars than they did out side of prison. If they are sentenced to the death penalty they will not be able to do any more harm, inside or out of prison. The Death Penalty provides closure for the family of the victim, which helps them to deal with their mourning. The methods of executing the defendant have become more and more humane, so the argument saying that it is inhumane is getting less and less true.
ReplyDeleteI think that the death penalty is unjust. It is impossible to be exactly sure of who committed a crime and I don’t think anyone should face as severe a consequence as death unless they are completely sure. Kotch made a very good argument against this point. He says “If government functioned only when possibility of error didn’t exist, government wouldn’t function at all.” I think this is a valid point, but it seems like a person’s life is a bigger deal than many other punishments for other crimes, and therefor, I think it is a separate case. Life is not something that can be given back, so if a mistake is found, there is no way to undo the death penalty. However, jail time can be undone. I also think that some convicted murderers might benefit from proper therapy and be able to change their thought process that made them kill in the first place. I also find myself wondering if murderers have something different about their brains than other people. In a way, it seems as if this must be true. If so, is it really their fault that they killed someone?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the death penalty should never be a way of solving things. I agree with Koch when he says that the government can do more things than an individual, but killing is killing, and not even the government should have the power to do it. I believe that the law states that killing is illegal in any way. I understand that if one murders somebody, they should receive a punishment, such as a life sentence in jail, but not the death penalty. Koch says that if a murderer is not executed, the murderer can get out and kill somebody again. I think that if the government worries about a murderer getting out of prison and killing again, they should have better security. I mean, isn't t hat why there are various police officers? The murderers should be watched 24/7 by the officers that work in a prison. Lack of security might be the cause as to why some murderers escape prison and go kill again. In conclusion, I believe that the death penalty is a unjust punishment, and the death rate of our country will just increase if capitol punishment is not stopped.
ReplyDeleteI believe that every person's life is sacred. I don't believe in war, and I too am wary of a justice system where things can slide through the cracks. That having been said, I think that capitol punishment, within strict parameters, can be a just penalty for particularly heinous crimes of murder or even rape. People who show such a blatant disregard for the lives of others should not then be reassured that their lives are still precious. They forfeit their right to life when they commit the crime, and I don't think they should ever be allowed control of their lives again. People who commit cold-hearted, calculative murder leave a life-long scar on those left behind by the victim. It is more important that the families of the murdered feel closure than that the offender is given his right to life. And who's to say a sociopathic murderer will stop when they're in prison? As long as there are procedural safe-guards against wrongful convictions, the penalty isn't applied to crimes of passion, and is always administered through lethal injection, I think a well-executed Death Penalty is a legitimate component of our justice system.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone murders another person, they need to be punished. But how do you punish someone who was willing to take the life of another human being? Does 20 years in prison actually change these people? Fact is, if these criminals are released, they have potential to strike again. There is no need to release these people into the world after they have taken so much from it. They need to be brought to justice, which might mean death. Sure, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," but these people are a danger to the people around them, which would be prison guards, inmates, or (worse) anyone outside of prison. Rather than risk the safety of the people, just eliminate the danger. Plus, with such a severe punishment, other people would be less motivated to murder in the future. There needs to be specific rules for this punishment though. After all, we don't want to put the wrong person to death! There needs to be: no doubt that the person is guilty of the crime, the person must be sane to understand why they are being punished at such a degree, and a humane method of killing. People who murder need to be removed from society, and life in prison sometimes isn't enough of a punishment. Death is needed to remove these dangerous people and help society.
ReplyDeleteThe death penalty should be a punishment only for murderers who kill in cold blood, and have more than enough evidence to make sure that they are guilty without a doubt. I certainly fear death, and if I was going to kill someone I would think twice if I were to possibly suffer from the death penalty if I was convicted. On the argument that it is always wrong to kill, Koch referred us to great philosophers like Kant believed it was an irreplaceable part of society. Bad people would be killed, and that would be a lesson to everyone else not to be bad, it was pretty simple. We also need better methods of killing people than lethal injection, there is debate as to whether or not that is actually painless, but it is known that a bullet (or more) to the head is instantaneous and painless. Death by firing squad is the most humane method of dealing with executions, for the felons, and the executioners. In the past there were seven men who all lined up and shot at the convict, one of the seven men would be firing a blank, the other six would have real bullets, but no one would know who had the blank. Everyone would assume they had the blank and have a clean conscious, it worked great. That said, the trial preparation and cost of a capital prosecution can be more costly than putting an inmate in prison for life. So, if we were to continue to use the death penalty we would first need to either cut down the cost of a trial, or just put the inmate in prison for life. It's ridiculous to spend as high as two million dollars to execute someone when we could put that money into public schools or transportation.
ReplyDeleteThe death penalty is the most extreme form of punishment, and is not to be taken lightly in any means. I think that the death penalty has both valid pros and cons. Some pros I have discovered in researching is that life is precious, and if someone else is able to throw away someone else's, do they deserve their own? It also ensures the lives of possible victims in the future. In more than one case, a convicted criminal has killed additional people after completing their "life" sentence of 25 years. Over 45% of criminals, including those convicted of crimes punishable by death, have been proven to have mental illnesses. After 25 years of being in jail, then suddenly thrown back into society, criminals cause the same amount, if not more, of a threat to innocent people. The death penalty does, on the other hand, have cons as well. One of the main arguments in the second essay is the question as to whether or not the government is any better than the offender. Does it really teach anything to do the exact same thing to them as they did to other people? Is that preventative? Or is it just repeating the cycle? The death penalty also has no room for error. After ending someone's life, they will not be able to ever be brought back. I have read that in some cases, the convicted murderer has been proven not guilty after been killed. Is it worth losing another innocent life just to serve justice to the victim? I have not yet formed my opinion on this topic. It is hard to decide whether or not someone should be killed, guilty or not.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, I believe in the death penalty because I think that it is an adequate form of punishment. Koch says, “Human life deserves special protection, and one of the best ways to guarantee that protection is to assure that convicted murderers do not kill again. Only the death penalty can accomplish this end.” I think this is a very valid point. If murderers are put to death, you can be absolutely certain that they will not kill again. Yet, at the same time, we cannot ignore all the cases in which people who were thought to be killers were proven innocent. It could take years to know for certain whether or not a person actually killed someone else, so by saying the death penalty is just for all cases of murder is untrue. If the death penalty is not the way to go, then most people would argue the killer should receive a life sentence. I do not think that a life sentence in jail is enough to make up for what the killer did. Many people can get a life sentence for doing different things, such as robbing a bank or embezzlement, things that are terrible, but obviously not nearly as harmful as murder, yet they get the same punishment. In the end, I think that the death penalty is a way to bring justice to the families, the victim, and the community, but the state must be absolutely, completely certain that they have the right person.
ReplyDeleteWhile pondering on the pros and cons of the death penalty, I realized that my thoughts were contradicting one another. I do not think the death penalty is just and it should not be generously used because life is precious.Every courtroom punishment but death can be revoked so if a judge did make the decision to use the penalty it is an irrevocable choice. However, if an unforgivable, extreme crime is committed, I believe the death penalty should be considered. An extreme example from the Knoch article described a convict kidnapping a child, murdering her and then manipulating the body, which is when the death penalty should be considered. Gruesome crimes such as the previous example are reasons enough to show heinous crimes need repercussions. In conclusion if the death penalty is to remain legal there should be very tight restrictions so that so that a precious human life is not hastily removed.
ReplyDeleteWhile both sides present very strong arguments, I honestly cannot pick one. I think that rather than put myself in either of their positions, the solution can best be chosen by putting myself in the position of someone in a situation where the death penalty is involved. For instance, if I was facing the death penalty I would certainly not support it. I'd be horrified that such a thing was going to happen to me. And if I was someone who'd lost a loved one, and their murderer was facing it, I'd probably support it. And as a citizen, the fact that some murderers are on the loose again doesn't really scare me. They were on the loose before they killed, and it's just one of many terrible things in the world. But when it comes to there being a law, I think some terrible things should be higher priority. Like the fact that patients with chronic diseases or conditions don't have the right to get medical help to end their own lives. I believe that the government should not be given such a right that an individual does not have. If capital punishment is just, I'd like to see a little more justice first.
ReplyDeleteI am honestly mixed in my opinion of the death penalty. Like some of the other commenters, I believe that it has its pros and cons. For example, I agree with Koch that the death penalty strengthens the value of human life by ending the lives of those who have ended the lives of others. However, as others have discussed, there is certainly a huge amount of room for error with the death penalty - I have heard about cases where more evidence comes out after someone receives the death penalty that could have caused the case to turn out differently. I do, however, believe that the possibility of the death penalty could cause murderers to think twice before they murder. To me, and, I'm sure, to many others, the thought of dying is much more threatening than that of a life in jail. I am still torn on what to think about it - in support of the death penalty, I believe that killing is wrong only to an extent, but I also believe that there is too much room for error with the death penalty. If I had to pick yes or no, however, I think I would say that I do not believe in it. To me, the room for error outweighs the benefit of dangerous criminals thinking twice due to the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteBased on the essays we have read in class, I think that the death penalty is only okay is the case is extreme. First of all, life is a precious thing, it is not something people can just throw out the window. In the first essay, Koch explained that he is okay with this if the murderer is guilty. I think that the death penalty is something that should only be given in the worst of all times. They should only grant the penalty if something like killing 5 innocent teenagers happens. In this example, the murderer may only be put to 5 life sentences, but the outcome is based on the judge's thoughts. But, in some cases, like the mentally ill, the death penalty may be unfair based on how stable the murderer is. If the mentally ill patient commits a murder,they might not be able to remember what they did.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think that we should use the death penalty as a consequence of murder. If you don't have a punishment that's just as bad as the thing the person did wrong then they will feel like they can get away with it and be better off than the person they killed. One thing that stuck out to me in the reading was when Koch said that some people thought that the death penalty was barbaric. At first I agreed with that point but then in the paragraph he said that to not have a huge punishment to make up for the horrible thing that the person did would be barbaric. It would also make life less precious if you didn't kill people that committed murder. Another one of Koch's point that stuck out to me was that an innocent person might be killed. But his counter point was very strong that the only way to protect people is by making sure you get rid of the killer and the only way of doing that is by killing them.
ReplyDeleteTyler Russell
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe that the death penalty is not a good punishment for a number of reasons. First of all there is always a chance, no matter how small, that an innocent person might be executed. Now Koch says that if something like that were to happen that the death penalty would not be abolished, but what would happen. Nothing, because he believes that an innocent American citizens life is not worth abolishing the death penalty. That right there is something I really don't agree with because if it did happen I would want at least something to change in how the death penalty would be given. The only best scenario for the death penalty is if the government could guarantee that not one innocent person would be executed( which has probably already happened) . If that could become a reality I still wouldn't support it because the giving someone the death penalty ignores one very crucial thing. People can change, it is possible and by giving people the death penalty the government is completely ignoring that. Now I get that we can't just let murderers walk away but at least build a program to give people a chance to turn over a new leaf and make something of their lives instead of just having a needle stuck in their arm. Overall I believe that the death penalty is not the answer for punishing murderers but I think that there are alternatives that could be a whole lot better.
Posting for Sam Braun:
ReplyDeleteThe death penalty has many advantages and many disadvantages, given all the pros and cons it can be very useful in some situations but not in others. The death penalty is one of the most feared punishments in the system. Because once you are dead you do not get a second chance. This death penalty makes people think twice about their actions, which does the main job of the punishment, to deter crimes. But in the other hand what if someone is just in the wrong place at the wrong time? It is not a daily event but there are many cases were someone innocent gets executed. In that case once the innocent's dead you can not take it back and magically make the person come back to life. I think this is what makes this punishment a such a big deal, and the reason why majority of the countries don't have this punishment.
Personally, I believe that the death penalty is a good form of punishment. I feel like that from reading both essays, the death penalty has more pros than cons. For example, from Edward Koch's writing, I felt like he made a great point that when we lower the penalty for those who have killed, we lower the value of the people they have murdered. If society thinks that government killing is wrong, then the people in society probably should think twice before they kill someone. And this will happen, another one of Koch's good points, if the death penalty is instated, that murderers WILL think twice before they kill someone. They wouldn't second guess themselves if they knew they weren't going to be executed if they killed somebody. So, in addition to raising our nation's value of lives of individuals, the death penalty would also keep a larger number of killers from killing.
ReplyDeleteI think that the death penalty is the way to go, but only for certain cases. For example: If a person goes and murders 14 people, I think that they took too many lives to just get away with a life sentence. Also, if a person goes and murders their 7 year old neighbor, I think that a person who is heartless enough to go and kill a child should be put to death. But if someone who is mentally ill kills someone, I do not think they should be given the death penalty because they didn't know what they were doing. I also think the death penalty is the best option because it shows that serious crimes do not go un-punished, and that people should think twice before they act. It also keeps killers from killing again if they escape or kill someone in the prison. Even though there is always the possibility that an innocent person may be killed, we need to take that chance to ensure that murders are kept to a minimum.
ReplyDeleteI think that that the death penalty is very effective in stopping murders, especially for people who have killed many victims, however, in some cases it seems extreme. I think that we should use it on a case-by-case basis. For example, for people who have only murdered one person, a long sentence in jail might suffice. But for other, more dangerous people, such as Lemuel Smith, the man mentioned in the article who killed one of he officers in the prison he was in, the death penalty might be the way to go. As Koch states, another life sentence means nothing, because he has already received multiple. Or, in other cases, a prisoner could make some sort of decision (not necessarily on their own) about whether they would prefer a life sentence or the death penalty. I think keeping the death penalty might, as Koch suggests, deter murderers. In extreme cases, too, where people have murdered many, there is a smaller chance that they are completely innocent. One could administer the death penalty with not as much worry of killing an innocent person; at the same time, people who were innocent but had been convicted for the first time would serve their time in jail. As with other things, I think the key is this:moderation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe United States court system is too flawed for someone’s life to depend on it. A United States court case is a game of chance. If you are innocent and prosecuted, so many uncontrollable variables could discredit your claim of innocence. In the courtroom, the judge may be biased ; the lawyer you are appointed may not be well experienced ;or the jury may be quick to conclude you are guilty based on flawed logic or stereotypes. At the crime scene, the police could tamper with evidence causing it not to be admissible in court or the crime scene investigators could overlook something that could have proved your innocence. At any point in your life, you could simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time and be executed for it. If someone innocent is given the death penalty while a killer roams the streets, the United States has assisted the killer in claiming the life of one more victim.
ReplyDelete