|
... Extremely controversial issues, such as the death penalty, ignite people’s deepest passions and hypothetical, rational systems do not apply so well anymore. ... Some people vigorously defend the death penalty, while others adamantly condemn it as societal murder. ... In this paper, I will argue against the death penalty, using several philosophers and relevant data that I have collected. However, I will attempt to deal with the death penalty as an actual event, an existent ethical decision that cannot be simply packaged into one theory or another. ... In other words, the argument in this paper is my personal understanding of the moral dilemma that is the death penalty; in theory, it applies to no one else.
First of all, I must describe what I understand the death penalty to be. In my definition, the death penalty is any organized, legal killing of a human being as punishment for some crime or crimes. ... A second rationale a government might have could be to use the death penalty, the most feared of all penalties, as an ultimate deterrent against heinous crimes such as murder or rape. ... In them the government fulfills its duties as official protector and ultimate judge and punisher of its citizens. However, I feel that all of these above principles can still be upheld without the death penalty, and, moreover, should be accomplished without resorting to such an extreme. My reasoning for this lies in the more personal implications of the death penalty. An argument could be made attacking the utility of the death penalty, whether or not it represents the greatest good for the greatest number, but that still deals with the objective, theoretical side of the issue.
Approximate Word count = 1316
Approximate Pages = 5.3
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
