Is the Death Penalty Applied Fairly Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Is the Death Penalty Applied Fairly - Essay ExampleThis definition also raises a allot of questions because according to many laws, the stopping point penalty is considered, lawful and non-malicious yet it also involves the killing of human beings by the government or concerned governance that execute such penalties (Williams, 2002). Those who oppose the death penalty argue that the terms execute, murder and kill can be used interchangeably. All the ternary actions result in the same windup because life is lost in all the cases. Those who argue that the death penalty is just and fair fail to acquit that they atomic number 18 condescending something that is as wrong as the crime that they purport to punish. Supporting the execution of someone who commits murder is just like committing murder itself. This is because the end result of such actions is the death of the people. Claiming that the death penalty is fair is similar to comparing rape to lovemaking or battery to self def ense (Williams, 2002). Those who support that the death penalty is applied fairly base their arguments on the fact that the death penalty is a punishment for those who deserve to be killed for what they did. There are many types of punishments that may be given to people who do wrong deeds. These punishments may range from denying a person certain privileges, imprisonment and even the death penalty. The right thing to do according to the law is to ensure that the punishment given fits the crime that was committed. This means that a small crime should be penalise in a small way and a very serious crime deserves a punishment of similar magnitude. Law jargon may rear to this as lex talonis which may be generally translated to mean, an eye for an eye. So, if someone kills an opposite person, do they deserve to be killed or get punished in other ways? I do non feel that the death penalty is applied justly or fairly because it is ironic to kill someone who kills some other person but not rape someone who rapes another person (Williams, 2002). The death penalty is not applied fairly because it seems to have a lot of loop holes. As seen earlier, those who support the death penalty do so because they believe that a crime should be punished according to its seriousness. If this was the case, would it be reverse to say that rapists should be punished by being raped? If a rapist is considered to be wrong by raping someone else, it is also considered morally stupid to rape that person with the aim of punishing them. It would be morally degrading to permit someone punish the rapist by raping them so that they do not get away with rape and that they do not rape again. Why then would it be right for someone to declare that a killer should be killed? Is this the only means of punishing someone who commits a crime of killing another person? I think that it is also morally incorrect to let someone decide that the life of another person should come to an end for whatever r eason (Williams, 2002). Life is very sacred and should be treated as such. No human being has the moral obligation of deciding that another person should live or die for whatever reason. Governments are there to entertain the rights and freedoms of their citizens. They should therefore ensure that the lives of their citizens are protected and respected, no matter what they do. When a person is found to have killed another person, the