Discussion Post Sample – Death Penalty/Capital Punishment: Banned or Allowed?

Surname:

Name:

Class:

Course:

Professor:

Date:

Discussion Post

Death Penalty/Capital Punishment: Banned or Allowed?

Introduction
When Yakub Memon was given the death penalty for the role he played in the 2003 Mumbai bombings, revisits us to the complicated issue of capital punishment. There haven’t been many topics that have sparked so much passion and controversy from people of all schools of thoughts like this one.
While there are numerous European countries in favor of ethical rehabilitation in the criminal justice system, and yet there are several jurisdictions in America that are firmly in favor of sentencing serious criminals to their death in certain cases. The most recent example of this would be the Federal Jury of Massachusetts which is relatively considered to be liberal. In this case the last surviving culprit of the Boston bombing was sentenced to die. United Kingdom is a nation that left capital punishment back in the year 1964, and even then the masses are in the favor of reintroducing the penalty. We cannot go further until we understand what kind of people are in favor of death penalty as opposed to what kind are not.

Religious Stance on Death Penalty: Not in Favor
Every religion holds a different stance on the death penalty. Though most people belonging to Buddhism and Hinduism hold unambiguous commitment towards eradicating violence from the world, they aren’t entirely opposed to death penalty. The Old Testament encourages the believers to take an “eye for an eye” which is a principle of lex talionis, whereas the New Testament encourages believers to “turn the other cheek” and endure. Islam is regarded as a religion in favor of the death penalty, however, the Holy book of Quran emphasizes heavily the importance of forgiving others instead of responding to violence with retaliation (Phillips, 2009).

Retribution
It is a widely accepted notion that people who have committed horrible crimes deserve to live a life as bad as the one they caused their victims to live. Essentially, it is believed that punishment levels the playing field for all. Retributivists view capital punishment to be intrinsically valuable in itself, rather than being of value due to it preventing future crime at the hands of the wrongdoer (Roberts-Cady, 2010). Retributivists believe that criminals need punishment as severe as their crimes even though punishing them through death penalty has no long-term effect on the society.
However, there were several people who were against the death penalty of the Boston bomber on the grounds that a life sentence in a maximum security prison would be a far brutal punishment in comparison to death. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what the masses may or may not think about capital punishment. It is up to the justice system to make a proper decision regarding the sentencing of a criminal, in light of the severity of the crime. Disagreeing with retributivists, I believe that the severity of the crime and whether or not the criminal can be rehabilitated play a huge role in the decision to sentence him to death.

Conclusion
While there are multiple debates regarding whether or not capital punishment should be banned or allowed, I believe that until a perfect way of determining a criminal is found, we should refrain from sentencing one to the death penalty.

References

• Phillips, S. (2009). Status Disparities in the Capital of Capital Punishment. Law & Society Review, 43(4), pp.807-838.
  Roberts-Cady, S. (2010). Against Retributive Justifications of the Death Penalty. Journal of Social Philosophy, 41(2), pp.185-193.