Penalty 3 Essay, Research Paper

The death penalty has been an extremely important issue that has been around since before the settlement of the United States. Throughout history, even in biblical times, the ideal of an eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth has come up in determining the punishment to fit the crime committed. When dealing with the issue of the death penalty, we are talking about something that has no definite right or wrong standpoint. It is an extremely touchy topic due to the main fact that it deals with the loss of a life which in the church’s eyes is wrong in any circumstance. However, in the eyes of many law officials as well as people of the US, if a crime is so serious that it causes irreversible damage or a loose of human life, then the only penalty for such crimes would be death for the individual(s) who committed this act. Although there is no set answer, and there are various opinion on this matter, one must inevitably take the standpoint being that killing another is wrong in every manner regardless whether it is just or not. But when does the crime fit a punishment of death? Who are we to decide whether a person should live or die?

Let us use the example of murder. The pro’s of having the death penalty in this example, are minimal, but substantial. In many cases, the families or loved ones close to the victims of these crimes cannot find closure until they know that the accused is dead or has paid for the crimes that he/she has committed. They often feel that it would be unjust

Geibel 2

for that person to live when their loved one is gone from them forever. Many also feel that if an individual can possess the strength and will to take the life of another human being in a planned manner, then they must also in turn be able to face their punishment which could only be a punishment of the same magnitude as the crime in which they have committed; that being for their life to ended.

The cons in this situation would be that after a sentence, with the magnitude of the death penalty is applied, there is no chance for reversal under any circumstances. For instance, should a person be wrongly accused of such a serious crime as murder (i.e. a case of mistaken identity) or a case involving accidental death etc Another con is that it is highly immoral for someone to take the life of another human being no matter what the circumstances are. Then it could be said that who are we to judge if a person is able to live or die; this is only god s role and he is the only one who is able to make such an important decision especially since it involves the life of another one of his creatures.

There are no clear cut right or wrong answers to this dilemma, but we can only try to see the opinions of the others in their eyes. If we were in the situation where we were facing the death penalty would our feelings change? In my opinion, I am against the death penalty in ever respect for the simple fact the two wrongs don t make a right. Although someone may have committed a crime, even if it is very wrong, it still does not make it right for their life to be taken from them. It is only God’s place to decide whether or not a person should live or die. If we now allow the death penalty as a form of final punishment for such serious crimes as murder, then one must wonder if in the future, this penalty may be applied to other crimes in which the government may later deem to be of a similar serious nature.