A Permanent Death - Capital Punishment :: essays research papers

There are five basic reasons that society uses when imposing "punishment" that Ive been able to conclude from my readings. I will discuss these societal concepts and show that the death punishment does not serve to further them. As a result William Smith should not be subject to the death penalty and in fact the same should be abolished from our system of "punishment". DeterrenceDeterrence is basically defined as "the punishment should fit the crime." Under this concept, the several(prenominal) committing the crime and society are prevented from committing this action again. In the case of the death penalty, an individual kills another human and he is "punished" for it by death. Punishment is suppositious to be a temporary penalization for a wrongful action. Death is far from temporary. One is to learn from ones mistakes. How can the individual learn if they are remunerative for their mistake with their life? In Ernest van den Haags article, " The Ultimate Punishment A Defense" he states, "The death penalty is our harshest punishment. It is irrevocable it ends the existence of those punished, preferably of temporarily imprisoning them." (Haag, 251). By imposing the death penalty the individual does not learn from their mistakes and neither does society.EconomyUnder this concept, punishment should be economical. As Haag points out, "...the financial cost of appealing a capital sentence is excessive." (Haag, 253). Further, "...actual monetary be are trumped by the importance of doing justice." (Haag, 253). Additionally there are specific costs associated with keeping an inmate on death row, (i.e. the cost of the specially built prison blocks, the need for maximum security, etc.) and more. These costs clearly out weigh the weak costs incurred to house a regular inmate. Deterrence is clearly not served by imposing the death penalty and society aims for justice are thwarted. recurrenceSociety d emands that the punishment should fix the harm it has done. By sentencing a person to death no harm has been fixed. You can not bring the murdered person back by taking the prisoners life. "Punishment-regardless of the motivation is not intended to revenge, offset, or compensate for the victims suffering or to be measured by it." (Haag, 253). RetributionThe participation demands that justice be served. Would justice not equally be served and in fact may be better served by life imprisonment? I believe it would be a worse punishment to endure a life sentence in prison.