Death Penalty

Death Penalty

Introduction

The western world lives in the judicial system more tolerant than ever. The death penalty was banned in most democratic societies, or exists only as a legal concept. The movement against the death penalty won the case; the discussion is over and avenged a certain common sense that sees the death penalty as an exceeded archaism. For all this, it is not surprising that the arguments against capital punishment have fallen asleep in the shadow of this victory (Peffley & Hurwitz, 2007). Capital punishment is unjust because it violates the basic principle of proportionality. Even though the crime on trial be a capital crime, it is not fair to apply a penalty to the same extent, taking the life of the murderer. In this paper, we would be highlight the core fundamentals and the reasons behind the oust of death penalty. For our paper, we would be speaking against the death penalty.

Discussion

However, the historical argument extends to numerous countries that simply have abolished the death penalty. In these countries there has been no significant increase in crime, which seems a good argument against those who defend the rationality of capital punishment as a deterrent (Pojman, n.d.). Thus it would seem that some criminals condemned to death would not bring any social advantage, since it does not lessen the crime. On the other hand, the possibility of judicial error, which is always present, advise against the abolition of death penalty.

Penalty is known as the concept of "pain," a corporal or spiritual suffering imposed on an individual in return for behavior of a high level of social culpability. This definition leads us to believe that the penalty is a bad, since it means, for the sufferer, a lack or loss of important legal value, such as liberty, property and life, but this definition of contrast with the view of others, which argue that the penalty should help redemption, transformation and social reintegration that offends (evanmandery.com).

To start things off, I'll bring up some points against the death penalty, which are as follows:

Violates the right to life which is stipulated in the Constitution and international treaties.

Life is unavailable against values ??such as public safety or state.

It is irreversible against possible miscarriage of justice.

As previously stated it is not proven that affects the lower crime rates.

According to modern psychiatry the death penalty is one of the worst torture he may be subjected to as people.

Prevents rehabilitation and repentance.

For Christians, the Pope John Paul II called for abolishing the pastoral visit to U.S. in 1999.

Sometimes the penalty is paid to the glorification of the executed.

Who defends the death penalty in terms consequentialist has since denied the inferences that the abolitionists derive from statistics and history. These arguments have to be careful because they cannot afford to deny the overall value of the statistics, which would be absurd. But if we grant the doubt before the statistics, then the consequentialist argument is immediate: faced with the uncertainty of the deterrent effect of the death penalty ...