So, I've been busy this few days, and just wanna make sure that this blog has new thing this time, I just throw in my research paper from my last year summer class. Hope this reading will give some thought for you guys and feel free to give opinion on the subject matter
Capital Punishment
For the past six decades we have been disputing about one of the most controversial issues concerning morality and what type of punishment should be delivered from a courtroom to the defendant. Morality is an issue itself, because it is based on opinion on what is right or wrong, but I do know one thing, and that is punishment should be delivered in equivalence to one’s crime. Capital Punishment should be a consideration, or even exercised regularly throughout the country in courtrooms.
Punishment to one’s crime, as I stated before, should be equivalent to the criminal’s crime. For example, if a little boy steals from your store a piece of gum, your not going to send him to jail but you could just make him pay back the gum and ban him from the place. Now with that little scenario that I illustrated in mind, it leads me to my first point, and that point is proportional retribution. Proportional retribution is commonly confused with revenge, because proportional retribution does seek out proportional punishment to ones crime, but you shouldn’t confuse it with revenge because proportional retribution is a form of equality; a way to balance the crime and punishment out. Yes, proportional retribution is a good way to let society let out their frustrations towards the defendant, without taking the matter at their own hands, but it does not mean it is solely revenge but a point leading me into deterrence.
Deterrence is a form of delivering fear in a psychological way into society. If Proportional retribution is executed throughout the country then deterrence will take place. Future murderers will fear capital punishment leading into less death. Some people may say life imprisonment is a more of a deterrent but how can you prove that? Several cases have been noted where convicts serving life end up in parole such as Clarence Ray Allen from Texas, Richard Marquette of Oregon, Robert Lee Massie from California, and many more. When parole was gained they where let out just to kill and keep their vicious habits. On other cases some may not get parole but end up committing the crime of murder in their own prison like Norman Mailer and many more from New York. So if people try to evade capital punishment because it’s not humane, then how is it humane to put murderers next to murderers in a contained box? If life imprisonment does not execute enough fear; what fear will have a greater deterrent effect on them than the death penalty? Well let’s say they are correct though for a moment and life imprisonment is more of a deterrent. Now the criminal will be caged up into a little cell for life but the thing is the criminal is still taking something with them, a sort of value. This value of which the criminal possesses is life. The person is still living with accommodations consisting of food, bed and activities that must be paid in some kind of way; the average payment of $805,000 per inmate comes from none other than our tax payers. If life imprisonment is commonly used, then our tax will rise because of the increase of inmates obtaining this sentence.
There many ways people could die out in the world because of other people, like automotive makers. They could make their cars 100% safe but that would cost them an extra $100,000 which will reduce the buyers of cars; or like default appliances could be dangerous but why not ban it? Why not just stay home 24-hours in the house secure? Did you know doing all that would at least disable us from giving out wrong convictions on killers because of moral value. Most people say moral values should come in place into this decision of whether making the death penalty a common use as punishment in the country. Moral values, like I said before, are very opinionated. Moral values come from the culture (their customs in a specific place) from where the person was developed in, so moral values shouldn’t come into consideration but focus on the logical conclusions. Think about how many lives will be spared because 1) the murderers will be killed, so the threat will be abolished and 2) future murderers will know their outcome and fear punishment.
For decades this issue has been in controversy, but now we can settle it once and for all. Death penalty should be legalized throughout the country and be an option for criminals committing murders. From proportional retribution for equality of punishments in crimes, to the death punishment being a deterrent leading to the elimination of killers, legalizing death penalty is a great solution for minimizing the possibilities of people being killed in the future.
Punishment to one’s crime, as I stated before, should be equivalent to the criminal’s crime. For example, if a little boy steals from your store a piece of gum, your not going to send him to jail but you could just make him pay back the gum and ban him from the place. Now with that little scenario that I illustrated in mind, it leads me to my first point, and that point is proportional retribution. Proportional retribution is commonly confused with revenge, because proportional retribution does seek out proportional punishment to ones crime, but you shouldn’t confuse it with revenge because proportional retribution is a form of equality; a way to balance the crime and punishment out. Yes, proportional retribution is a good way to let society let out their frustrations towards the defendant, without taking the matter at their own hands, but it does not mean it is solely revenge but a point leading me into deterrence.
Deterrence is a form of delivering fear in a psychological way into society. If Proportional retribution is executed throughout the country then deterrence will take place. Future murderers will fear capital punishment leading into less death. Some people may say life imprisonment is a more of a deterrent but how can you prove that? Several cases have been noted where convicts serving life end up in parole such as Clarence Ray Allen from Texas, Richard Marquette of Oregon, Robert Lee Massie from California, and many more. When parole was gained they where let out just to kill and keep their vicious habits. On other cases some may not get parole but end up committing the crime of murder in their own prison like Norman Mailer and many more from New York. So if people try to evade capital punishment because it’s not humane, then how is it humane to put murderers next to murderers in a contained box? If life imprisonment does not execute enough fear; what fear will have a greater deterrent effect on them than the death penalty? Well let’s say they are correct though for a moment and life imprisonment is more of a deterrent. Now the criminal will be caged up into a little cell for life but the thing is the criminal is still taking something with them, a sort of value. This value of which the criminal possesses is life. The person is still living with accommodations consisting of food, bed and activities that must be paid in some kind of way; the average payment of $805,000 per inmate comes from none other than our tax payers. If life imprisonment is commonly used, then our tax will rise because of the increase of inmates obtaining this sentence.
There many ways people could die out in the world because of other people, like automotive makers. They could make their cars 100% safe but that would cost them an extra $100,000 which will reduce the buyers of cars; or like default appliances could be dangerous but why not ban it? Why not just stay home 24-hours in the house secure? Did you know doing all that would at least disable us from giving out wrong convictions on killers because of moral value. Most people say moral values should come in place into this decision of whether making the death penalty a common use as punishment in the country. Moral values, like I said before, are very opinionated. Moral values come from the culture (their customs in a specific place) from where the person was developed in, so moral values shouldn’t come into consideration but focus on the logical conclusions. Think about how many lives will be spared because 1) the murderers will be killed, so the threat will be abolished and 2) future murderers will know their outcome and fear punishment.
For decades this issue has been in controversy, but now we can settle it once and for all. Death penalty should be legalized throughout the country and be an option for criminals committing murders. From proportional retribution for equality of punishments in crimes, to the death punishment being a deterrent leading to the elimination of killers, legalizing death penalty is a great solution for minimizing the possibilities of people being killed in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment