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

Justice demands the death penalty for serious crimes. Discuss

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐Perlie Mong Justice demands the death penalty for serious crimes Using death penalty to administer justice has long been a subject of debate. There are many arguments both for and against it. In my opinion, I think justice does demand the death penalty for serious crimes. Firstly, justice is the fair treatment for all and assigning punishments and rewardes impartially. According to Colossians 3:25, ?Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is not favourtism.? This biblical quote suggests that punishment should fit the crime. For someone who has committed serious crimes, i.e. murder, surely he should receive serious punishment, i.e. capital punishment, as Exodus 21:23 states, ?But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.? Death penalty not only punishes the criminal, but also offers closure for the victim?s family even though the victim cannot be brought back. Some people might argue that a society needs to move away from the ?revenge mechanism? to become truly civilised and ?Christian?, as Micah 6:8 says, ?Christian justice has no place for vengeance, self-righteousness, or ?getting even.? Instead, justice requires us to seek the good of others, even those who have wronged us. ...read more.

Middle

They also get the chance to make a will and prepare for death which the victim never had the chance to do. Therefore it is in fact a merciful way of punishing the criminals who have committed serious crimes while administering justice and so is not revenge. Furthermore, even though everyone, including the criminals, is entitled to sanctity of life, it is the sanctity of life of the victim that justifies death penalty, as written in Genesis 9:6, ?Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.? Moreover, killing can sometimes be justified if there is a good cause behind it, therefore death penalty can be justified. It is also arguable that death penalty is an act of an society to defend itself. Apart from the retributive justice aforementioned, utilitarianism justice is another type of justice. Utilitarians argue that justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals; therefore death penalty should be carried out as it is effective to keep the society safe. It has the ability to achieve future social benefit, i.e. reduction in crime rate. A society needs to use punishment to deter would-be criminals from unlawful actions. ...read more.

Conclusion

First of all, there is always a chance that a criminal will be given a parole even if the sentence of the criminal is supposed to be life imprisonment without parole. While some people think that paroles offer a second chance for criminals to ?be good? again, there is no guarantee of it. In fact, 5% of murderers released on parole in Oregon committed homicide again within the subsequent five years. Moreover, there is also the chance that the criminal might escape, with or without murdering the prison officer, who is also innocent. For the third counter-argument, although there is no absolute proof of the deterrent effect, there is no absolute evidence to disprove it either. If it does not have a deterrent effect, we have just punished people according to the gravity of their crimes and stop them from murdering anyone else again; but if it does have a deterrent effect, we are actually saving innocent lives. Therefore social justice and utilitiarianism justice does demand the death penalty for serious crimes. Therefore, in conclusion, I think that death penalty should be used as a punishment for serious crimes. This is because it is adminstering justice on the victim?s behalf by giving punishment to the criminals according to the gravity of their crimes. It also protects the society by deterring potential criminals and prevent serial killers to murder anyone again. ...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. Death Penalty Opinion.

    Which world would we prefer to live in? Since it is better to kill a murderer to save innocent lives than to allow the deaths of innocent people to preserve the life of a murderer, capital punishment is a practice our society must have.

  2. Critically evaluate arguments for and against the death penalty.

    Not often. The reason for this increasing risk of the innocent being executed is due to the death penalty being the sentence for more crimes and more states beginning to use the death penalty. With greater use of the death penalty, there is more chance of mistakes being made.

  1. The Impact of the Black Death on the Christian Faith

    Even with all this death in the clergy and in the countryside among the peasants surrounding the people, no one wept over the dead, because it was to be expected. The plague took so many so quickly, questions were raised as fast as the people died.

  2. Should the death penalty be used lawfully in civilised society

    tragic for the innocent to lose his life than for the state to take the life of a criminal convicted of a capital offence', (Bedau 308). If someone is lined up for execution then he or she more than likely deserves it.

  1. Is the death penalty the best protection from a murderer? Is justice for the ...

    Most of these studies have failed to produce evidence that it deterred murders more effectively than the threat of imprisonment. There are 38 states in the US that have the death penalty as the punishment while the other 12 do not.

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

    penalty.xiv The age at what someone can be subject to the death penalty differs from state to state. xvThe act of this prosecution indefinitely breaches the rights of humans, especially the young who are the future generation. The international human rights treaties that forbid the execution of anyone under 18

  1. Death penalty.

    New technology has produced a process called DNA testing, which I assume you have heard at lot about. With this DNA, tests show whether very personal property from the killer found on the victim, such as blood and hair belongs to the accused person.

  2. Let's Give murderers What they Deserve - the Death penalty.Explain the arguments for and ...

    It lasted thirty seconds. Sparks and flames erupted ... from the electrode tied to Mr. Evans' left leg. His body slammed against the straps holding him in the electric chair and his fist clenched permanently. The electrode apparently burst from the strap holding it in place. A large puff of greyish smoke and sparks poured out from under the hood that covered Mr.

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