Yourlastname 1

Student Name Professor Name Subject 8 May 2000 Is it ethical to use the death penalty? From the times of state formation and up-date the death penalty is not yet fully eradicated. Both arguments for abolition and for preservation have certain reasons. It would seem that what can be easier than the "eye for an eye" principle. However, there is a difference between a premeditated murder committed by a criminal and a state-sanctioned murder by the society whose interests the state represents. It turns out that the society is guilty itself for having brought up and educated criminal and it deprives it of life. The point of view of many people is that the death penalty should be abolished on the condition of its appropriate change in the form of not only material and psychological hardship for the offender, but also with specially individual features designed to induce the mental guilty, anguish and feelings about the committed crime.Is this absolutely correct, or does the death penalty not address issues of ethics and morality? For this we need to consider the pros and cons and make a choise. Ethical arguments against the death penalty The arguments for the death penalty rarely withstand moral scrutiny. But whether there are moral arguments against it? Yes, there are. The main ones are as follows: 1. The death penalty has a morally corrupting influence on the society. It has such an effect directly through the people involved in it, and indirectly - by the fact that the presence of the death penalty approves the idea that the murder may be a good thing in some cases.Citizens receive additional ground by guarding and acting by vigilante justice and punishing criminals (eg, murderer), especially if they share the opinion that public officials perform their functions not in good faith. The proof of the corrupting influence of the death penalty is that it is actually perceived and practiced as a terrible flaw. It comes only as inhuman, shameful thing: executors hide their profession; one invents such methods of punishment that it is impossible to even know who serves as the executioner. Prosecutors calling, and judges delivering a death sentence would never agree to be its performers, not to mention legislators, instituting the death penalty, or the philosophers who justify it.

Yourlastname 2

2. The death penalty is an illegal act. Law is based on the balance of personal freedom and the common good. The death penalty is destroying the individual and common relationship. This is not the right ,rather "the war of a citizen and the nation". Legal punishment is always individualized, directed exclusively at the culprit. In the case of the death penalty actually relatives of the offender are also punished, because it affects them such in a strong way that can bring to madness or suicide, not to mention severe mental suffering.In law there is a principle of recoverability of punishment that can in some ways make reversible cases of a miscarriage of justice. In relation to the death penalty this principle is violated: the one who was killed cannot be brought back to life, as it is impossible to make up the damage caused by a legal error. And these errors are not such a rarity. It is estimated that, for example, in the U.S. were made 349 false death sentences, 23 of which were executed. A well-known case of judicial practice is the following: before the real killer maniac was found, over ten suspected were taken under arrest, many of them "confessed" and were sentenced to death. 3. The death penalty is the wicked and deceitful in the sense that it clearly violates the terms of personal reference. Nobody has control over life. Life is a condition of human affairs and the need to remain within them. In addition, one cannot judge the guilt of and much less talk about the absolute incorrigible personality of a criminal. Empirical observations show that the death penalty often produces deep spiritual revolution to whom it is intended; sentenced begins to look at the world different, enlightened, not with the criminal eyes. At least in some cases, execution, even if it is not a miscarriage of justice is carried out when there is really no need. It is noticed that the judge who read out the sentence of death was experiencing an involuntary shudder inside. This fact, as well as sustainable aversion to the profession of executioner and instinctive reluctance to communicate with them can be considered as implicit signs that the death penalty actually has something wicked, false. This is also evidenced by the inhuman horror, which is connected with the murder.

4. The death penalty is an attempt on the fundamental moral principle of the selfworth of the human person, its holiness. At the extent, that we identify morality with non-violence, with the requirement "One shall not kill", the death penalty cannot have a moral sanction, because it is the opposite. Not only by the arguments that it is framed by, but also by the fact of its very existence, the death penalty is an attempt to smuggle the thought that the murder could be a human, reasonable thing. The death penalty is murder, as such, absolute murder, that is a fundamental denial of fundamental moral relation to a person. In conclusion, although given

Yourlastname 3

ethical arguments in favor of the death penalty do not have a logical mandatory, they seem to be very convincing for lot of people. Public opinion in many countries as a whole tends to support the practice of the death penalty. This setup has the force of historical inertia, with varying degrees of openness supported by official ideology and encoded in various forms of spiritual culture. It also has roots in the historically human emotional system. The fact that the murders, especially when they occur in agonizing forms of grave indignation, automatically switches to an instinctive desire for revenge. Behind this is the absolute rejection of the murder, the desire to immediately and resolutely put an end to it. The extraordinary power that is fundamentally quite healthy emotional reaction silences the voice of mind. Of course, people's opinions, especially when they are partly motivated by righteous anger, is a fact that cannot be ignored. But do not forget the custom of sacrificing people to the gods, and, presumably, this practice was associated with a high elation, and people who were against it, arouse indignation. Over time this has changed. People have come to believe that people cannot be sacrificed even in the name of the gods! There were new ideas that formulated the principle of "One shall not kill", the principle of non-resistance to evil by force. But these principles had and still have and remaining gaps: one of them is the death penalty. Generally murder is morally unacceptable, except when it is done by the state and allegedly in the name of morality itself. Nothing prevents from thinking that in regard to this error over time there also occurs intellectual and emotional insight in the society. Contemporary discussions of the death penalty are a step to this insight. Are there ethical arguments in favor of the death penalty? These are ethical, moral arguments, by which the death penalty is justified, not just forced to accept, acceptable, namely justified as necessary from the point of view of the common good, justice and humanism. The most important of these arguments are the following. 1. The death penalty is just retribution and a moral act, as applicable, as a punishment for murder. This argument is the most widespread. It is particularly strong and convincing, since justice is indeed based on the principle of equivalent. But the principle of the equivalent in this case and is not followed. A murder, which must be penalized with death penalty is considered as an offense. The very same death penalty is an act of state activity. It turns out that crime is equated to the act of state activity. Capital punishment overcomes other forms of murder in psychological criteria. Prior knowledge of the death and its expectation, separation from family, the horror of the executioner, and much more makes the death for a murder psychologically more difficult than in most other cases. Equivalence in retaliation is not met, when the forces of the executioner and the victim are

Yourlastname 4

inherently unequal. All agree that a situation when an adult who kills a child that he could disarm and punish any other way is an unjust act, even if the child has already had a bloody mess things matter. A murderer, no matter how awful he is, in the face of society and the state is weaker than a child in front of the adults. Finally, the death penalty cannot be considered equivalent to a punishment when it is used for other types of crimes than a murder. But in cases of murder it is not equivalent, because they do not take into account the different shades of guilt. 2. The death penalty being fair to whom it is applied, is moreover justified for its deterrent effect to prevent the commission of such a crime by others. This argument is based on the deterrent effect of the death penalty and this deterrent effect seems to be very solid. The death of a criminal in the sense of intimidation is more efficient than its long, painful bleak existence out of freedom because it does not prevent further possibilities. It really is impressive, but this impression will not last forever. In the case of the death penalty, as in all other cases, the punishment causes the prevention of the following crime. Finally, and most importantly, statistically, purely empirically is determined that the death penalty reduces the relapse of such crimes in the society.This is particularly true of the killings in the society - the presence or absence of the death penalty affects the quantity and quality characteristics. The following chrestomathy example clearly refutes the argument that the death penalty has a disciplining effect on others through intimidation. In 1894, during a public execution in France of a Mr. S. one of the spectators climbed a tree before the guillotine, to better observe the spectacle.ne wanted to remove him and therefore he was well remembered. A year later, this man was executed in the same place for the same crime as committed by Mr. S. 3. The death penalty brings the benefit to the society in the way that it frees it from dangerous criminals. One could argue that society can protect itself from them even by a life sentence in isolation. But if we talk about the good side of society, it must be considered as s reimbursement of the damage done by the criminal. And the death penalty compensates the pain of the family or relatives. 4. The death penalty can be justified on humanitarian considerations in relation to the offender himself, because life imprisonment, hopeless, unbearable confinement is worse than instant death.The living conditions of a prisoner are not worth wishing and even unacceptable and telling the truth it would be a humane attitude to give the criminal the right to choose. Generally humane (moral) can only be considered an action to which that (or those) whom it relates have agreed to,but not in case of a death penalty when a person gets what it has deserved.

Yourlastname 5

5. The death penalty is a simple and cheap way to get rid of the criminals. Its most important advantage in the eyes of the people is that it is very simple, cheap and not a puzzling sentence. This argument is rarely stated in publicly, but perhaps best captures the real motive, which is the basis of the death penalty. Through the death penalty the state is dismisses the criminal, showing a visible force in its actual weakness. And this proves that moral considerations are here not tenth-rated but rather considered. Making a conclusion I observe all the pro and contra arguments and I think that the main arguments in favor of the death penalty speak for them and make the situation clear 1) The death penalty is a fair punishment for one of the worst crimes a murder. Principle of equivalence in the relationship and behavior of people was an important factor in regulating the society relationships; 2) The death penalty has a deterrent and therefore restraining effect in terms of the use of violence,the death penalty is a necessary step in overcoming violence; 3) The death penalty saves society from criminals who may re-commit a serious crime; 4) The death penalty is economically feasible, this is a cheap and easy way to combat the crime; 5) The death penalty is more humane (in relation to the criminals) punishment than life imprisonment; 6) The public consciousness in the form of public opinion is set out to carry out the death penalty. Considering this arguments I strongly believe that death penalty responds all ethic and moral norms because it is really a way of making our society friendlier even if we use such punishment for those who do not want to obey the rules and impinge rights and freedoms, lives of another society members.The society has strict rules and the must be followed,if somebody finds it moral enough to kill a person,why should the society find it not ethic enough too sentence this person to a death penalty?

Yourlastname 6

Works cited

Amnesty International.When the state kills.Amnesty International USA.1989

Goran Franck,Hans;Schabas,William.The Barbaric Punishment: Abolishing the Death Penalty. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.2003 Hood,Roger. The Death Penalty.Council of Europe,2004.