It is more reasonable to utilize the death penalty than to abolish it. The death penalty should not be abolished because (1) it deters people from committing murder and (2) because the death penalty gives peace of mind to the victims and their families and puts an end to the crime.
(1) The death penalty should not be abolished because the fear of the highest form of punishment will keep potential victims alive.
(2) The death penalty should not be abolished because the families of the victims can only begin the healing process once the murderer is put to death.
Response to objections to the thesis
(1) Objection: The death penalty should be abolished because even the highest form of punishment will not remove the evil from society.
Response: If the death penalty was abolished, the convicted murderer has the potential to escape and kill again. This will spread more evil and give the option to kill again to the murderer.
(2) Objection: The execution of a convicted murderer will never bring the victims back to life. Therefore it serves no purpose other than to kill.
Response: Resurrection has never been the purpose of the death penalty. The family members just want to start healing and they can't while the perpetrator is still alive.
Van der Haag, Ernest and John P. Conrad, The Death Penalty: A Debate (New York: Plenum Press, 1983).
Arlen Specter, "Congress must make Death Sentences Meaningful Again (Human Events, July 1994).
Hugo, Adam Bedau, Ed., The Death penalty in America: Current Controversies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)
Blumstein, Cohen, Nagin, Deterrence and Incapacitation (National Academy Press January 1978)
It is more reasonable to utilize the death penalty than to abolish it. The death penalty should not be abolished because (1) it deters people from committing murder and (2) because the ... Continue Reading