QUESTIONS

Questions

Questions

Answer 1

The sacredness of life has been taught for centuries. One can find it's teachings throughout western history. This reverence for life is often cited to be against the death penalty. 'Those who base their opposition to the death punishment on moral surrounds contend that life is sacred and killing is habitually wrong, if it is finished by an one-by-one or by the state.' (Honeyman .3) It is protected to say that most of us would acquiesce that our inhabits are prized, and even sacred. Most of us furthermore acquiesce that killing is wrong. But not to punish a lawless person that takes the life of another with the supreme punishment, that being death, is to devalue all human life. Miller displays, 'To penalize a murderer by incarcerating him as one does a pickpocket will not but downgrade human life. Murder differs in value from other crimes and warrants, therefore a penalty that disagrees in value from other penaltys.' (87) By not giving lawless persons the proper quality of punishment, we drive the incorrect note to our society. We ignore the gravity of the misdeed by a mere slap on the hand and a journey through a revolving door. 'To deny to punish any misdeed with death is to propose that the contradictory worth of a crime can never exceed the affirmative value of the life of the person who pledged it.' (Miller .88) We've all heard the saying that activities speak loader than words. The fore cited viewpoint demonstrates a lack of worth for the victims life.

The Bible has habitually been a source of moral foundations for western civilization. God set forth his phrase as a guide by which to reside our resides. These commandments have stood the test of time. The overhead viewpoint that retains murdering ...