Capital punishment is just a response to murder. With the death penalty, some people may believe that an innocent life has been taken. However, without capital punishment, the whole society would face the certainty that more innocent lives may be taken. For a sound-minded and conscience, the choice is clear. If the death penalty is revived, there are more chances of innocent killings. It is an important issue raised by the writer due to its consequences. The purpose of the capital sentence is to deter people from serious crimes. There are polarized opinions regarding this decision; some people are in favour of retaining this act, while others want to abolish this decision. The USA is a Christian country; in reference to the Bible, there are certain crimes for which the death penalty has been set, so it is acceptable to God. It can maintain order and protection in society. In history, we have examined that punishment by death was for minor crimes like petty theft, denying true god, pickpocketing and so on. It became a controversial issue in the past. It has been accepted for major crimes like murder cases. Some people still believe that it has no place in a civilized society. They believe that it violates the 18th amendment that forbids the capital sentence and is an unchristian practice. I personally believe that for protecting the lives of innocent people, capital punishment is necessary. However, for minor crimes, it is against justice.
In this essay, I will critically analyze both arguments, and I will draw a conclusion of this essay. I will provide a summary of the author’s thesis, and I will give my personal opinion about this case.
In the second paragraph, the author argued about the counter-argument about capital punishment, that the state might execute innocent people. However, I firmly believe that this claim is false and illogical because the state provides a chance for the culprit to defend their case and provide evidence regarding their innocence.
In the fourth paragraph, it is discussed that some social goods, such as automobiles and other facilities, could because the death of innocent individuals. It is asked that the government should ban even cars because they can harm innocent people. I personally believe that the nature of both cases is different, and we cannot relate both.
Keeping strictly 40 miles per hour speed to prevent the deaths of innocent people should be implemented. It is the counter-argument to oppose capital punishment. In my opinion, this point is also weak because there are proper rules for traffic and penalties that can overcome the chances of accidents.
When a murderer escapes from prison without any penalty, there are higher chances to recommit the crime, and for more murders, the court will be responsible. For a murderer, there are two penalties either a death sentence or sentenced to life in prison. If this law is revived, there would be chances of more murders. With the fear of such punishments, people will think many times before killing their enemies. When killers are executed, they will never kill other innocent souls. Let the criminals live so some of them will recommit the same crime. The law of death sentence is banned in many countries, and they lock the murderers up for life; however, it has been noticed that some of the murderers escaped and killed more innocent people. Even some had killed the prison guards as well. Some of them had killed their inmates. Killers are the most dangerous people that can threaten the harmony in the society. People feel insecurity and uncertainty in their lives in the presence of free-wandering killers. So I believe that there should be no mercy for the killers, and there should be a strict penalty for them.
Some people argue that capital punishment is that the state may execute some innocent persons. The case of murder is not as simple as we believe because it requires strong evidence. In some cases, the killer gets an advantage and gets free due to a lack of evidence against the culprit. While in other cases the innocent person is declared as a culprit. However, it is about the evidence, and every culprit has the right to defend their case with the help of their lawyers. In my point of view, capital punishment should not be abolished for this argument. However, the culprits should be given a chance to defend their stance.
There are certain emotionally compelling arguments against capital punishment which are trying the abolish of this penalty. However, I believe that it is intellectually and morally shallow. To maintain peace and harmony in social justice and law enforcement is essential. For everyone guilty, regardless of their background, there should be strict penalties. The loopholes in a sentence would allow the criminals to get out of the deal in such serious and sensitive crimes. It would create more problems in society, and the common people would feel insecure about living in such a society where the murderers are freely moving.
There is a counter-argument about the life sentence that there is no major social good that has not led to the death of innocent people. They further added that millions of people had lost their lives in car accidents, but still, we haven’t banned cars. I believe that cars are not the culprit but the drivers are for sure. If they are violating the speed limit and other safety measures, they are as convicted as other killers are. For car accidents, there is a law that must be strictly followed, and if it is violated, there is a set of penalties. My personal opinion about this stance is that a guilty person must face the legal consequences, and the said narration in favour of murder culprits is vague and nonsense.
The purpose of this essay is how to save innocent lives; there are two causes of innocent deaths, such as murders through killers and second is accidents. For the killers, we have a strong argument that they should be sentenced to death. The second cause of death is not intentional but due to some carelessness, for instance, overspeeding and violation of other safety measures. So we can consider both in the same category, and I partially agree with the counter-argument that roller coasters and drivers should follow safety measures; otherwise, they should be banned. We have observed that every highway has its speed limit, and that must be strictly followed; those who violate it must be fined.
The criteria for abolishing capital punishment to save innocent lives from killers are different from the deaths and injuries caused by overspeeding and roller coasters. There is a matter of intention; none of us allow others to take our lives, death caused by roller coasters and cars are rare chances, and no one forces you to ride in the car or roller coaster that is certainly leading you to death. However, I believe that roller coasters, which are not safe and don’t follow safety measures, must be banned. Even driving a car with even 40 miles per hour is not safe; breaks are failed, or a drunk driver is driving it.
The abolitionists believe that capital punishment and many social policies can kill innocents, so why only murderers are facing a capital sentence? I believe that if we have one good rule to stop innocent killings, so why should we abolish it? In other cases, as discussed earlier, like accidents, these also need strict criteria and a certain set of reforms.
It is a fact that we all have to die one day, and there would be a certain cause of death; it may be a fatal disease, accident, or killed by someone. Even the murderer has to die someday. It is stated that most Americans don’t share their views regarding the capital punishment of a killer is either moral or immoral. They have an emotional opinion about it which is intellectually dishonest, that the killer has the right to live because it was the fate of an innocent person to die. However, it is logically wrong, maybe emotionally right, because it can disturb the harmony and peace in society.
Here the counter-argument is that far more innocent persons died not because of murderers; there are many other reasons for their death. So, only capital sentence policy can’t protect them from death. Here I would say that for every cause of death, there are certain protective tools and measures which can reduce the chances of death; for instance, diseases have their treatments, and to avoid accidents, there are safety measures and rules. Moreover, murder is not only the cause of death, but it is also a social issue that challenges peace and harmony in society.
Some murderers are professional, and they even kill their fellow prisoners to seek the possibility of escape from jail. To resume capital punishment can even hurt more innocent lives because the murderers see the possibility of escape from prison. So this premise defends our conclusion that capital punishment is the only solution to this problem.
I believe that when a murderer kills more people after his capital punishment is abolished by the advocates of capital punishment, the blood is definitely out of their hands. Giving a chance to a guilty of killing innocent people to survive is not out of danger.
It is my moral responsibility to raise my voice against any innocent killings, and I am a proponent of capital punishment. Those who advocate capital punishment may have good faith behind their stance, but I keep a polarized opinion. However, I respect their opinion too.
Our premise is that capital punishment should be continued to overcome the cases of innocent killings. It is supported in the 2nd paragraph, which refers to the right to defend their case in front of the court. The court’s decision is completely based on evidence and proof. The culprits have time to defend their case and get free from prison. In the fourth paragraph, the counter-argument raised an issue of deaths caused by automobiles and asked to ban automobiles as well; however, that stance was illogical because the nature of both cases is completely different. Automobiles are made to facilitate us; however, in rare cases, due to our carelessness, we have certain accidents. In the 5th and 7th paragraphs same issue was discussed to reduce the speed limit of the automobile and shut down all the roller coasters. My response to this argument was that we already have a certain set of rules for traffic and roads to avoid accidents, and there are penalties if someone violates these rules. The 10 paragraph supports our premise, as it states that if the murderers are not executed, they can kill innocent people in jail to escape from there. So it is concluded that capital punishment is the only effective solution to protect innocent lives.
Conclusion Diagram A
Premise 1: In the second paragraph, the author argued about the counter-argument about capital punishment, that the state might execute innocent people.
Premise 2: In the fourth paragraph, it is discussed that some social goods, such as automobiles and other facilities, could be because of the death of innocent individuals. It is asked that the government should ban even cars because they can harm innocent people.
Premise 3: In the fifth paragraph, it is argued that keeping strictly 40 miles per hour speed to prevent the deaths of innocent people is the counter-argument to opposing capital punishment.
In light of the above premise, I conclude that capital punishment is the only solution to save innocent lives from murderers. Premises 1, 2, 7, and 10 support my conclusion. The argument of the writer was inductively weak and does not support the abolishment of capital sentences against murder. While premises 3, 4 and 5 were distracting the idea of abolishing capital punishment, however, their evidence was not logical and made no sense. Some of the evidence was deductively weaker, for instance, that automobile accidents also threaten the lives of innocents, so it should also be banned. These premises discussed that there are many other reasons which could hurt their lives, such as accidents, diseases, suicide, etc. However, murder is the only cause that creates a sense of insecurity and injustice in society.
Conclusion Diagram B