Case study paper on - death penalty both pro and anti capital Essay

Case study paper on - death penalization both pro and anti capital punishment - examine ExampleOn the other hand, the article written by Hugo Bedau argues that death penalization is a lawful killing, and since it is a form of killing the law should summon above it and condemn it. He says that death penalization is an immoral act in an indecent form of action by the law, and the fact is that it is a ennoble form of killing executed and polished by the law. I feel that both the articles gravel a very valid point, and it is upto the mountain and the law to try what is right and wrong. However, keeping everything in mind, death penalty should be slowly taken away from the law and society as we move towards a more(prenominal) liberal and morally committed world. The first article is written in an extremist/radical style, while the other one is written in a liberal/radical style. Both the articles maintain a valid point of law, however, it is pertinent to note that death penalty should be tried to be through away with slowly, and not immediately. IN this context both the articles explain an important perspective, the perspective of doing away with death penalty provided with slow time. Death penalty is not morally wrong. I am sure ernest van den hag would have reacted hard on this thought. Just as imprisonment is not considered morally wrong as a lawful kidnapping, or fine is not considered to be morally wrong as a lawful robbery, I dont think that people should consider death penalty as morally wrong as a lawful murder. It is an example, which is set to the people and has been a very successful form of bullying over the last many centuries. In many ways death penalty has acted as deterrence better than imprisonment, but as the society moves forwards, we need to realize that this form of punishment will not yield the same results again. Death Penalty as a form of deterrence will slowly fade away, as life imprisonment takes over. In answer to the second l ast question, both the arguments make sense either ways. However, lets try to move forwards and be more pragmatic. It is true that there is no going back once the death penalty has been executed. And therefore the point is that to be careful while executing the death penalty. This is because there are many criminals even today who deserve this penalty. One cannot do away with this form of punishment mainly because there exists an apprehension that innocent will get killed. What about the fact that there is being a spontaneous abortion of justice? Even that is an apprehension, and therefore we need to sideline both the apprehensions and think from a logical and practical perspective. And that perspective teaches us that the execution of death penalty should be allowed, albeit with caution. The final question consists of Bedau contemplating that it is immoral and indecent to award death penalty in response to crimes such as rape and kidnapping. Crimes such as rape and kidnapping in th em mind of Bedau is not that extreme or indecent to attract the award of death penalty. It is pertinent to understand that death penalty should only be awarded for the rarest of the rarest crimes, and not for some petty crimes like kidnapping. Agreed, rape is a very severe crime which attracts a very severe punishment, but killing the rapist for such an act would be encroaching upon the boundaries of morality and responsibility. The correct punishment for rape would be to award life imprisonment, which is still la very harsh punishment, as deserved by the rapist, but not on the extreme