Capital Punishment Analysis

Words: 879
Pages: 4

Death Penalty and the Lack of Morals
Capital Punishment, otherwise known as the Death Penalty, is a government sanctioned imposition of death as punishment for the commission of a crime, usually homicide. About half the U.S. states and the Federal Government openly exercises this (Hood, 2017). Capital Punishment has been considered a controversial subject for the last 150 years. It has been argued whether or not this form of punishment is able to act as a form of deterrence against inhumane crimes and if the people are morally obligated to end the convict’s life.
Law
The United States Supreme Court makes it known that any sort of penalty must be proportional to what the criminal is being charged with (Staff, 2016). Cases that do not adhere
…show more content…
Van Treese’s body was found at the Oklahoma City’s Best Budget Inn where he suffered blood loss and blunt force trauma to the head (Breyer, 2016). Sneed pled guilty to the murder and received a life-without-parole sentence in exchange for testifying against Glossip. Though Glossip consistently denied the claims that he told Sneed to kill Van Treese, Glossip was sentenced to death. Consequently, Capital Punishment was used as a weapon against someone who merely oversaw the crime. While Van Treese’s murderer is continuing his life sentence, Glossip is appealing a much worse …show more content…
When this happens, the case is elevated as both attorneys present the jury facts and evidence needed for making this decision. The prosecution would provide circumstances that prove that the defendant lacks remorse or committed the offense in a heinous manner. The defense usually counters with remorse, age, and whether the defendant is help mentally capable of understanding wrong doing. (Hood, 2017)
Moral Dilemma
Many supporters of Capital Punishment believe that people who take the lives of others should have to forfeit their own right to life (Hood, 2017). It is the common belief of retribution, an ‘eye for an eye’. By contrast, opponents of this penalty firmly believe that it actually legitimizes the behavior that our society hoped to limit in the first place. Abolitionists also claim that it violates the condemned person’s fundamental right to life (Hood,