Essay on Capital Punishment: Abolitionists vs. Supporters

Introduction

Typically, the majority, if not all, believe that human life is one of the most valuable things on the planet. Researchers, activists, and analysts whose ideologies oppose the legality of capital punishment suggest that life is a precious asset that everyone deserves a right to own without such a forceful deprivation. Nevertheless, abolitionists support the idea of capital punishment with their justifications and concepts. For instance, most of them hold the opinion that in the case of murder, the victim does typically not suffer, but the family and the loved ones (Steike & Steiker, 2002). Stress and trauma may cause long-lasting effects. Therefore, their elimination would be the only way to seize the results. Due to these debates, this study would determine whether capital punishment should be permissible on a person convicted of certain crimes or not?

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Article against Legalization of Capital Punishment

The first article that comes first when searching for “why Capital punishment should be abolished" is a website made by the British School of Boston Organization in their discussion concerning criminal justice. In the article, the authors critically oppose the act of criminal justice by providing several premises and justifications from researchers and other authors. The following constitutes the fundamental premises depicted in the article:

Premise 1: Studies have revealed that the death penalty as a practice should be eradicated because it violates the guidelines and provision of the Eighth Amendment, which sharply criticizes cruelty and rare punishment.

Premise 2: Research also suggests that capital punishment is usually administered selectively in a racially discriminative manner, thus targeting the minor categories and the poor.

Conclusion: The death penalty is not a solution for crime because the ruling convicted more than 400 individuals in the 20th century, yet the practice is still evident in the 21st century.

Evaluation of the Quality of Argument against Capital Punishment

The presented arguments in the article tend to support the derived conclusion. The first principle suggests that capital punishment is against human rights and, thus, should be treated as a vice. In contrast, the second premise confirms that, although the practice is usually applied when individuals commit murder, it is not any form of corrective measure because it does not reduce the prevalence of murder cases in society.

However, the premises above do not fully support the argument against capital punishment because the sentiments were based on postulations and assumptions instead of empirical results. For example, the first premise only discusses a single amendment act when there are hundreds of such actions when talking about the theme of criminal justice. Perhaps if other laws suggest differently, then the findings would be controversial, and the conclusion would indicate further evaluation. Similarly, the second premise does not mean the source of the findings and methods that were used to gather such results. Meanwhile, despite the plan, field studies are usually characterized by numerous errors or omissions. If such an assumption is taken into account, then then this conclusion would again be different. For these reasons, the premises may be factual, but they are not sufficient to argue against capital punishment.

Article Supporting that Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed

“ProCon organization" hosted a website that generally creates an argument for capital punishment. On the website, various premises are observed that attempt to support the reality that capital punishment should be allowed.

Premise 1: On some occasions, the best way to offer justice is death to protect the people related to the victim from suffering due to psychological stress ("Should the death penalty be abolished?" n.d.)

Premise 2: Studies show that it is more cost-effective to execute murderers than to impose lifetime imprisonment (n.d)

Premise 3: Society has various moral rights that support the killing of violent criminals. Such criminals include the wicked persons who deserve to die. Murderers should be categorized in the same category (n.d).

Conclusion: Capital punishment should be allowed because it is a better solution to other judgments against criminals.

Evaluation of the Quality of Argument for Capital Punishment

The presented arguments offer excellent judgmental reasons in support of the conclusion. Nevertheless, they are also characterized by numerous drawbacks that could be evaluated to overturn the side taken as a conclusion. Although the first premise seems ethical with its decision, the benefit is one-sided since it does not state that the family and relatives of the murdered criminal will also suffer from psychological stress. For the second premise, the findings failed to discover the value of life and instead compared it to money, which is ideally less valuable. For the last proposition, there is no evidence of such societies; therefore, one would not perceive the information as a mere assumption (Gavrilš, 2011). Based on these evaluations, it is challenging to abide by the conclusion because the drawbacks could be addressed to find a more substantial conclusion.

There are several justifiable references drawn to explain both sides of the argument. However, it was not possible to gain access to the sources and references presented, because of most sites requested for sign-up and subscription options. Therefore, there are possibilities that such sentiments made in the form of text are correct, but gaining access to the respective sources could make it more appealing, and ethical to support the findings.

Conclusion

In summary, both ends of the argument on the topic of capital punishment appears strong enough to support each side and draw relevant conclusions. Therefore, it would be advisable to align with the hand that offers a more solid conclusion based on the arguments of its premises.

References

Should the death penalty be abolished? (n.d.). CliffsNotes Study Guides | Book Summaries, Test Preparation & Homework Help | Written by Teachers. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/criminal-justice/sentencing/should-the-death-penalty-be-abolishedGavrilš, A. N. (2011). SHOULD THE DEATH PENALTY BE ABOLISHED? ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CENTURIES-OLD PUNISHMENT. Journal for Communication & Culture, 1(2).

Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2002). Should Abolitionists Support Legislative Reform of the Death Penalty? Ohio St. LJ, 63, 417.

Should the death penalty be allowed? (2019, March 26). Death Penalty. https://deathpenalty.procon.org/questions/should-the-death-penalty-be-allowed/