My second argument deals with the moral and political justification of capital punishment. Politically, capital punishment goes back and forth depending on the era. The main issues seem to be with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the eighth amendment, which prohibits any "cruel or unusual punishment" for criminals. However, there are also amendments such as the fourth and fifth amendment which state that punishment is viable for as long as there is a reasonable trial and a defense is presented to the criminal being charged. The opinion of the justice system relatively reflects that of the nation of that time. In 1972, there was a sense of peace throughout the nation, possibly a result of the recently ended Vietnam War, and so capital punishment was interpretted as unconstitutional. However, by 1976 many states had begun to reinstate capital punishment as a viable result of crime. This back and forth pattern still exists today, with many states possessing capital punishment as a possibility, but it is rarely used.
Is capital punishment a morale practice? No, it most certainly is not. The range from which the criminals are executed are from hanging, electrocution, a fire squad, to lethal injection and gas. While gassing is not very popular, injection has become the number one method for execution. It is known as the "triple cocktail" method, and it includes the use of three drugs. The first and second drug serve the purpose of putting the criminal to sleep and numbing them from pain while the third serves the purpose of actually killing the criminal. There have been cases where the unimagineable pain of having every vein leading to your heart disintegrate as the solution heads to your heart to your untimely end. The second dose numbs the body to such a degree that a person cannot know whether the criminal is feeling pain. The first dose has been known to not be able to knock out the person. Is this punishment not cruel to the criminal; having to survive a half hour of unimagineable pain and suffering while they could at least be using their life to serve the purpose of retributions for the victim and their family?
1 comment:
Very good. Just one point -- I would suggest giving the oposing argument first before you state what your argument. (You did this overall except in one sentence.) Also, you gave a lot of factual information, which is good. I liked how you used the Supreme Court as an example, and certain time periods.
Post a Comment