How Would You Defend the Death Penalty or Do You Think Its Indefensible? Explain.?

Question by soybeansauce06: How would you defend the death penalty or do you think its indefensible? Explain.?
In his dissent in Gregg v. Georgia, Justice Brennan argues against the death penalty, calling it “official murder.” What is the basis for his conclusion? How would Kant respond to Brennan’s argument?

***I have to write a 3-5 page essay and use my terms and language in “Ethics form” because I did it in my own words and bombed my first essay…. HELP ME OUT!!!!

Best answer:

Answer by wizjp
There are some incredibly evil beings out there who are committing the most horrible crimes imaginable against the weakest and least of us. A just society demands that the only true justice for these acts is a forfeit of their own lives; and nothing less can really be called justice.
Anyone who could rape a child and then bury her alive, crying and dying in a box in the ground, crying for her mother and not understanding any of it to give himself a better chance to get away with it deserves the full penalty of the legal system.

Executed the wrong person? Has not been one case proven in modern judicial history that it has happened. Thus a long and exhausting appeals system. And I don’t say execute everyone. But it has a place in our system.

What do you think? Answer below!



Drug Rehab Atlanta | Alcohol Rehab Atlanta | Drug Rehab Atlanta – Alcohol Drug Rehab Atlanta Call (706) 223-1944 to Get Help Now! We offer the best drug rehab, alcohol rehab facilities …


EPA registers Isagro USA's Dominus Soil Biofumigant

Filed under: drug treatment programs in georgia

Isagro USA has received approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Dominus, a biopesticide and pre-plant soil treatment. Dominus is a broad-spectrum … Dominus has been submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for addition to …


NFLPA checking if Bucs leaked info on Freeman

Filed under: drug treatment programs in georgia

Freeman said in a statement released by his agent late Monday that he voluntarily entered the substance-abuse program and submitted to random testing more than a year ago after he mistakenly took Ridalin instead of Adderall to treat Attention Deficit …
Read more on Columbus Ledger-Enquirer


CMS National Payment Limit for Tier 1, Tier 2 Codes Not as Low as Before, but

Filed under: drug treatment programs in georgia

For example, KRAS mutation testing to personalize cancer treatment, performed by companies like Qiagen and Roche, received an average final gapfill price of around $ 200 from CMS. According to an analysis by … Qiagen, which markets an FDA-approved …
Read more on GenomeWeb


3 Responses to How Would You Defend the Death Penalty or Do You Think Its Indefensible? Explain.?

  • T. Dante says:

    People who condone the death penalty always forget one important factor — there is no way to bring a dead person back to life when new facts prove “he/she didn’t do it”. The innocent are never convicted, huh? Well, how many death-row, wrongly convicted people have “pro-bono” lawyers managed to free due to DNA evidence in recent years? Quite a few! Strangely enough, many in Texas!

    Another point NEVER mentioned. Many of these sadistic criminals are actually quite literarily insane. Why they are, who can say? Born that way? Driven that way? Is it right to kill insane people simply because their brains have gone ballistic? Hitler thought so. This is a judgment that every society has to make. In the USA, the issue is effectively skirted by almost NEVER allowing an insanity pleas. That is one way to solve the question …. just ignore it.

    If the “criminal” is insane, which is better — to kill him/her — or to lock them away for life? It is your call.

  • williamh10 says:

    The PEOPLE want the death penalty.
    The Constitution EXPLICITLY allows the death penalty.
    The USSC may not alter the constitution, that is left to the people and their amendatory powers

    Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    “nor shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

    Legally, logically, and constitutionally, WITH due process of law, a citizen of the United States, or anyone subject to our laws, may be deprived of their life, their liberty, or their property.

    If people wish to remove the death penalty, then pass a valid constitutional amendment, of course, since over 2/3 of the people support the death penalty, that is not likely to happen.


  • El Guapo says:

    I’m not going to write your essay for you, but I will tell you the reasons I think the death penalty is indefensible:

    1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. In the last 35 years in the U.S., 130 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These are ALL people who were found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. So, as long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much GUARANTEED to occasionally execute an innocent person.

    Really, that should be reason enough for most people to oppose it. If you need more, read on:

    2. Cost: Because of higher pre-trial expenses, longer trials, jury sequestration, extra expenses associated with prosecuting & defending a DP case, and the appeals process (which is necessary – see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

    3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually HIGHER in death penalty jurisdictions. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). It is probably due, at least in part, to the high cost (see #2), which drains resources from police departments, drug treatment programs, education, and other government services that help prevent crime. Personally, I think it also has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government fosters a culture of violence by saying, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

    4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) would love nothing better than to be put to death. In his words, “I have been looking to be a martyr [for a] long time.”

    5. Most governments are supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. The New Testament (starring Jesus) is primarily ANTI-death penalty. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praises mercy (Matthew 5:7) and rejects “an eye for an eye” (Matthew 5:38-39). James 4:12 says that GOD is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *