Capital Punishment
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The debate over capital punishment includes every citizen that lives and breathes; no individual is immune from the threat of death, and as members of an organized society, no individual can ignore that the state has been vested with the power to take the lives of those who would kill. Thus, capital punishment is a moral dilemma in the truest sense. If killing is understood to be wrong, then how may a society justify killing those who murder? The answer is not so difficult to perceive as one might expect. Capital punishment is ethical because it works to preserve the sanctity of the whole of society at the expense of just one of its individual parts: the murderer. In this, it is clear that capital punishment is morally defensible in three primary ways. First, by clearly defining the risk attached to murder, it serves as a deterrent to those who would consider killing as a logical means to an end. Second, it is proportional, and satisfies the most basic criteria for justice. And third, it is incapacitating, and prevents any individual that murders from ever harming anyone again. Ultimately, the moral center of the capital punishment debate must be understood as one which does not truly lie with the murderer and his rights to life. Quite the contrary -- it is a debate which must focus on everyone who is not a murderer. These citizens deserve the protection of the state, and the state in turn has a moral imperative to protect its citizens. Abandoning capital punish
. . .
ld choose to be treated by others. In David Leibowitz's article entitled "Capital Punishment is Just", he explains that "In a nation where justice is often represented by a set of scales, execution as punishment for a depraved murder marks the ultimateàsystematic balance"(1999, p. 140).
The most oft-cited Biblical reference to capital punishment is the "eye for an eye" passage in Exodus 21. As author Jeff Jacoby points out, many death penalty opponents view the "eye for an eye" rationale as "a formula for barbarism,"; that, in fact, "the very phrase suggests a legal system based on mindless and bloody retribution"(1997, p. 156). However, if one studies the passage in question in more detail, the moral foundation of proportional justice becomes clearer. Exodus, verse 23 states that "If there shall be a fatality, then you shall award a life for a life"; this passage is seldom referenced in the capital punishment debate. The follow up, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot", serves to clarify the nature of what proportional justice means in its truest moral sense: that it is unethical to dole out punishments that do not fit the crime. Is it barbaric and wrong to hang a man for picking
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Judiciary Committee, , Jeff Jacoby, Supreme Court, Department Justice, Protect Citizens, Capital Punishment, Citizens United, capital punishment, Press Inc, Review July, death penalty, greenhaven press inc, viewpoints san diego, death opposing, viewpoints san, opposing viewpoints, deterrent murder, punishment debate, protect citizens, san diego greenhaven, death opposing viewpoints, diego greenhaven, opposing viewpoints san, san diego,
Approximate Word count = 1539
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Capital Punishment
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
