• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Is it ever justifiable to execute a criminal?

Extracts from this document...


Is it ever justifiable to execute a criminal? "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Is this moral? All over the world debate has been going on whether it is ever justifiable to execute a criminal. Today, one of the most debated issues in the Criminal Justice System is the issue of capital punishment. In my opinion the death penalty, executing criminals is unjust in many ways. I feel this way, as it is not justifiable to kill people. The death penalty is merely saying that the government is above the law. If the people aren't allowed to kill then why is the government allowed to kill? ...read more.


Unfortunately that is not the case. According to the International Debate Education Association, "Higher execution rates can actually increase violent crime rates. California averaged six executions a year from nineteen fifty-two until nineteen sixty-seven and had twice the murder rate than the period from nineteen sixty-eight until nineteen ninety-one." Obviously, proven by the above statement criminals do not take their punishment into consideration before they act out in violence. Since the legalisation of capital punishment, many states have made incompetent decisions. According to the International Debate Education Association, accounts for twenty three innocent people that were executed in the United States during the twentieth century. How many other executed criminals were unable to prove there innocence? ...read more.


Are the real murderers still free and roaming around our streets? In conclusion, I think the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman degrading punishment and it also violates the right to live. The death penalty has never been shown to overcome crimes more effectively than any other punishments. No matter what reason a government gives for killing prisoners and no matter what method is used, the death penalty can't be apart from the issue of human rights. Human rights are not given by governments and they can not be taken away by governments. Human rights belong to everyone. Of course in cases of clear guilt, it is easy to say they deserve to die. However, the case involves the death of someone somebody else loves and it is hard to say goodbye. Capital punishment degrades society. Why do we kill people to prove that killing people is wrong? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Capital Punishment section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Capital Punishment essays

  1. Role of Fate

    There are many such situations that link to fate. Therefore, an inference can be drawn that it was Santiago's fate to die and he did. As for, Esteban his childhood days were spent in humility and loneliness. Additionally, the death of Rosa, his love for who he worked day and night with the sole aim to marry her left him in complete distress.

  2. Analyse the philosophical principles of at least one ethical theory and evaluate its application ...

    It might be possible to bend the rule and equate jail time with the crime as just punishment. In that case, assault and battery could be punished. In either case, the punishment, while arguably just, does nothing to recompense the victim, and nothing to prevent the criminal from doing further crime.

  1. Liability in criminal law

    of death is the 'but for' test, the courts must be convinced that the death would not have occurred but for the actions of the accused. White 1910 did not satisfy the 'but for' test, as White's actions made no difference to the outcome.

  2. Is an eye for an eye a legal remedy in the 21st century?

    Powers of governments are most of the times underestimated. With such discretion, governments are able to take away the rights of an individual in a warranted situation, such as the right to life of a criminal is limited by the governments extreme power. The death penalty has been recognized unconstitutional and abolished in many countries however undoubtedly many countries

  1. Our country is one of the four countries since 2000 to execute adolescents - ...

    One supporter brought up the point, "Should we err on the side of caution and protect the innocent and honor the memories of those murdered, or should we give murderers the opportunity to harm again?"

  2. Our aim of for both questions is to explore the guilty conduct required of ...

    Where the AR of an offence requires conduct on the part of the accused, whether an act or an omission, liability will only accrue where the conduct is willed. The actus reus has to be voluntary and considering that Carl was a psychopath, he may therefore not liable.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work