moaning is music
1.09.2006
capital punishment
Any argument that pertains to the logistic aspect or societal gain to capital punishment is both insulting to the value of human life and ignorant to the reality of its consequences. In order for the death penalty to be an effective deterrent, it would practically mean the enforcement of an all-out police state, as it is currently largely disputed whether the death penalty actually prevent crimes. It is certainly not a means of population control nor an aid in reducing the burden on prisons, considering the bureaucratic entanglements that prevent its efficient usage. Therefore the use of the death penalty can only be seen as a stain on society, an antagonistic action of the state against its citizens. The argument for that it is needed for the closure of the victim’s family is invalid because the punishment of one cannot be justified solely by the wants of another in a court where justice is blind. Capital punishment is simply a massive waste of American tax dollars that is illogical and has little economic or societal justification.
The rise of forensics has demonstrated the inherit fallibility of the justice system and opens the terrifying probability that many death row inmates could easily be not guilty. Over 100 inmates have been exonerated from death row because of new evidence since the re-implementation of capital punishment. The death penalty is an absolute action that cannot be resolved. Once an innocent person is killed there is no way to right the wrong. The due process of law guaranteed all citizens calls for a burden of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if there is enough evidence to convict someone of murder, if there is even the slightest possibility that the accused is innocent, they should not receive the irrevocable punishment of death. Given the disturbing evidence of innocent people on death row, a death sentence is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Moreover, the death penalty violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as well as rational human thought. The purpose of the Declaration is to establish the concepts of the right to “life, liberty and security and person.” I can think of no greater violation to these rights that outright murder committed by the government. The greatest argument in favor of the death penalty is “an eye for an eye,” but this is irrational and unjust in its implementation. It could be easily countered with the admittedly reductive argument that two wrongs don’t make a right. While it’s legitimate to argue that the punishment should fit the crime, the hypocrisy of using this is unnerving as well as regressive. Ghandi pointed out that “an eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” The underlying causes of homicide should be examined and used to address the problems rather than committing the same crimes that are trying to be prevented.
With so much weight against the continued use of capital punishment, anyone could come to the realization that it should not be used. The death penalty is ineffective, unjust, irrational, and serves no observable purpose to society or individuals. Every citizen must have the right to be free from the tyranny of fear over the security of their own lives. I have no choice to conclude that capital punishment should not be continued in the United States.
all these essays are starting to sound the same
blah blah blah i hate the government blah blah blah human rights
The one right of every human being that should be inalienable is that of their own life. Despite overwhelming controversy and concerns over its effectiveness and decency, the death penalty is still practiced in many states across the country. The U.S. is virtually the only Western country still actively using the barbaric and archaic practice of capital punishment, rivaled by such notorious human-rights violators as China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. It has been proven to be faulty, not a deterrent to crime, and inflicted upon the innocent time after time. The death penalty should never be used because it is an inhumane, unconstitutional, and deeply flawed practice that causes all citizens subject to its enforcement to become little more than slaves to their governments.
Any argument that pertains to the logistic aspect or societal gain to capital punishment is both insulting to the value of human life and ignorant to the reality of its consequences. In order for the death penalty to be an effective deterrent, it would practically mean the enforcement of an all-out police state, as it is currently largely disputed whether the death penalty actually prevent crimes. It is certainly not a means of population control nor an aid in reducing the burden on prisons, considering the bureaucratic entanglements that prevent its efficient usage. Therefore the use of the death penalty can only be seen as a stain on society, an antagonistic action of the state against its citizens. The argument for that it is needed for the closure of the victim’s family is invalid because the punishment of one cannot be justified solely by the wants of another in a court where justice is blind. Capital punishment is simply a massive waste of American tax dollars that is illogical and has little economic or societal justification.
The rise of forensics has demonstrated the inherit fallibility of the justice system and opens the terrifying probability that many death row inmates could easily be not guilty. Over 100 inmates have been exonerated from death row because of new evidence since the re-implementation of capital punishment. The death penalty is an absolute action that cannot be resolved. Once an innocent person is killed there is no way to right the wrong. The due process of law guaranteed all citizens calls for a burden of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if there is enough evidence to convict someone of murder, if there is even the slightest possibility that the accused is innocent, they should not receive the irrevocable punishment of death. Given the disturbing evidence of innocent people on death row, a death sentence is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Moreover, the death penalty violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as well as rational human thought. The purpose of the Declaration is to establish the concepts of the right to “life, liberty and security and person.” I can think of no greater violation to these rights that outright murder committed by the government. The greatest argument in favor of the death penalty is “an eye for an eye,” but this is irrational and unjust in its implementation. It could be easily countered with the admittedly reductive argument that two wrongs don’t make a right. While it’s legitimate to argue that the punishment should fit the crime, the hypocrisy of using this is unnerving as well as regressive. Ghandi pointed out that “an eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” The underlying causes of homicide should be examined and used to address the problems rather than committing the same crimes that are trying to be prevented.
With so much weight against the continued use of capital punishment, anyone could come to the realization that it should not be used. The death penalty is ineffective, unjust, irrational, and serves no observable purpose to society or individuals. Every citizen must have the right to be free from the tyranny of fear over the security of their own lives. I have no choice to conclude that capital punishment should not be continued in the United States.
all these essays are starting to sound the same
blah blah blah i hate the government blah blah blah human rights
Comments:
Post a Comment
