Death Penalty

             1,188 people were executed in the U.S. from 1977 up to 2009, particularly by means of lethal injection. Most death penalty cases include the execution of murderers inspite of capital punishment can  also be used for rebellion, espionage and other crimes. In this case some people believe that death penalty is given to the big criminals because what is that they have done in the past, they should pay back in the future (retribution). Not only that, but they also believe that there is no related with human morality. Meanwhile, other sides do not agree about death penalty because they sure that death penalty do not for retribution (revenge), they also have another opinion that death penalty is very incompatible with human morality (they deem that death penalty is immorality) because law seems like take away their human right to life and the law should not be used for revenge or take away life others.

The first proponent of death penalty said “People often confuse retribution with revenge....Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of this crime. Retributivism is not based on hatred for the criminal (though a feeling of vengeance may accompany the punishment). Retributivism is the theory that the criminal deserves to be punished in proportion to the gravity of his or her crime, whether or not the victim or anyone else desires it. We may all deeply regret having to carry out the punishment, but consider it warranted. When a society falls to punish criminals in a way, thought to be proportionate to the gravity of the crime the danger arises that the public would take the law into its own hands, resulting in vigilante justice, lynch mobs, and private acts of retribution. The outcome is likely to be an anarchistic, insecure state of injustice.”  (Louis P. Pojman, PhD,2004)

According to another expert said “The death penalty is a necessary and appropriate punishment. Many people treat ‘retribution’ as an unworthy purpose for such as a harsh punishment. But criminal punishments are retribution for crimes. One cannot reject capital punishment because it is retribution; the issue is whether it is an appropriate form of retributation.  Everyone agrees that three should be some punishment for murder. This mandate turns capital punishment into a necessity when nothing else serves as real punishment for a murder. Everyone would also agree that besides imposing some punishment for murder, the law should also impose meaningful penalty for murder. We do not impose fines on murderers because it would seriously deprecate the value of human life.....after a murderer has killed a certain numbers of victims, he reaches appoint where the only meaningful retribution is the death penalty there are murders for which alternative sentences of imprisonment are demonstrably meaningless. Treating capital punishment as though it is an eye for an eye, blood for blood, or murder for murder, ignores the differences between public retribution and private revenge. Criminal punishment inherently imposes sanctions that private individuals are unable to impose on each other.” (Richard A. Divine, 2003)

The first opponent of death penalty said “Retribution is just another word for revenge, and the desire for revenge is one of the lowest human emotions. Perhaps, sometimes understandable, but it is not really a rational response to a critical situation. For a Christian this is an urge to use violence for one’s own purposes, and urge which should be resisted. To kill the person who has killed someone close to you is simply to continue the cycle of the violence with ultimately destroys the avenger as well as the offender. That this execution somehow give ‘closure’ to a tragedy is a myth. Expressing one’s violence simply reinforces the desire to express it. Just as expressing anger simply makes us angrier. It does not drain away. It contaminates the otherwise good will which any human being needs to progress in love and understanding.” (Raymond A. Schorth, SJ, 2008)

According to amnesty international said “When the arguments of deterrence and incapacitation fall away, one is left with a more deep-seated justification for the death penalty: that of just retribution for the particular crime. According to this argument, certain people deserve to be killed as repayment for the evil done; there are crimes so offensive that killing the offender is the only just response. It is an emotionally powerful argument. It is also one which, if valid, would invalidate the basis for human rights. If a person who commits a terrible act can ‘deserve’ the cruelty of death, why cannot others, for similar reasons, ‘deserve’ the cruelty of death, why cannot others, for similar reasons, deserve to be tortured or imprisoned without trial or simply shot on sight? Central to fundamental human rights is that they are inalienable. They may not be taken away even if a person has committed the most atrocious of crimes. Human rights apply to the worst of us as well as to the best of us. Which is why they protect all of us?  What the argument for retribution boils down to, is often no more than a desire for vengeance masked as a principle of justice. The desire for vengeance can be understood and acknowledged but the exercise of vengeance must be resisted. The history of Endeavour to establish the rule of law is a history of the progressive restriction of personal vengeance in public policy and legal codes.” (Amnesty International, 2007)

The second proponent of death penalty said “While my views on the morality of the death penalty have nothing to do with how I vote as a judge, they have a lot to do with whether I can or should be a judge at all. To put the point in then blunt terms employed by Justice Harold Blackmun towards the end of this career on the bench, when I sit on a court that reviews and affirms capital convictions, I am part of the machinery of death. My vote, when joined with at least four others, is, in most cases, the last step that permits an execution to proceed. I could not take part in that process if I believed what was being done to be immoral. In my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.” (Antonin Scalia, 2004)

According to another expert said “Immanuel Kant said it best. He said a society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else’s life is simply immoral. So, the question really.....when the system works and when you manage to identify somebody who has done such as heinous evil do we as a society have a right to take his life? I think the answers plainly yes and I would go with Kant and I would say for us not to.” (Alex Kozinski, 2002)

The second opponent of death penalty said “Ultimately, the moral question surrounding capital punishment in America has less to do with whether those convicted of violent crime deserve to die than with whether state and federal governments deserve to kill those whom it has imprisoned. The legacy of racial apartheid, racial bias, and ethnic discrimination is unavoidably evident in the administration of capital punishment in America. Death sentences are imposed in a criminal justice system that treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent. Embracing a certain quotient of racial bias and discrimination against the poor is an inexorable aspect of supporting capital punishment. This is an immoral condition that makes rejecting the death penalty on moral grounds not only defensible but necessary for those who refuse to accept unequal or unjust administration of punishment.” (Bryan Stevenson, 2004)

According to another expert said “(Capital Punishment) violates the Eighth Amendment because it is morally unacceptable to the people of the US at this time in their history. In judging whether or not a given penalty is morally acceptable, most courts have said that the punishment is valid unless it shocks the conscience and sense of justice of the people. Assuming knowledge of all the facts presently available regarding capital punishment, the average citizen would, in my opinion, find it shocking to his conscience and sense of justice. For this reason alone, capital punishment cannot stand.” (Thurgood Marshall, 1972)

So, death penalty should not be used in base of law. It seems like the law take away of criminal’s life or human rights of the criminal. It makes look like the law is just used for revenge or retribution. It should not happen because there is a law for building the justice.

NAME  : ARIZKI DIDIN FIDANTO

Final project