Death penalty an obsolete form of punishment that is also ethically wrong

Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights.

Is the Death Penalty Ethical? - Papers by Carlos

Through the desperate, albeit calculated, actions of Victor Frankenstein, his creature, and their society, the novel explores the complexity of ethically and legally attaining justice amidst horrific circumstances.

Although the monster views his actions as a just response to the treatment he receives by his creator, several inherent flaws in his reasoning discredit the justice of his actions. The injustice done to the monster leads him down the slippery slope toward committing injustice himself as his emotional desire for revenge causes him to repay evil with evil.

But does he really believe murder is a just response to rejection? First, revenge proves an unacceptable motivation for seeking justice as the punisher, or the victim, as the monster considers himself, begins to think like the perpetrator: The goal of revenge is not just to punish someone, but rather to hurt someone, to repay them for the pain they caused.

Justice, however, relies on the premise that order, fairness, accountability, and security ought to be motivations for imposing punishment on a criminal.

The goal is not to pay someone back for their violation of the law, but rather to hold them accountable for their actions and protect possible future victims.

Some modern methods of punishment, however, surpass these goals, revealing the possibility of another motivation in addition to justice. The death penalty, for example, is considered by many a just punishment for those who commit murder.

Let 'em live

To others, however, this punishment seems unnecessarily cruel as society is equally as protected by a criminal serving a life sentence as opposed to receiving the death penalty. This reveals the monster understands right from wrong, justice from injustice, as he realizes he should stop his murder spree.

Therefore, because he denies justice to the monster, can Victor be held responsible for the subsequent murders of Henry Clerval and Elizabeth? Or, is he justified in later seeking to kill the monster to avenge their murders?

If the monster kills because he is rejected, can society be held accountable for the immoral actions of someone whom they treated unjustly? The novel suggests that Victor is wrong for shunning his creature and that society is wrong for shunning him as well.

The possibility exists that if the monster had been accepted by society, he might not have imposed his rage upon them. Thus, the suggestion remains that repetitive negative treatment by society can push someone to commit a crime.

We see this issue of rejection empirically cited as justification in murder cases across the nation. For example, the shooters in the Columbine High School massacre cited peer rejection as the motivation for killing their classmates.

But no one would argue that the murdered students were just as responsible for their own deaths as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Similarly, even if society mistreated the monster, he is still responsible for his own actions.

Although Victor cites revenge as his motivation to kill the monster, his situation is more complex.

Is the Death Penalty Ethical? | NewsActivist

While the monster seeks revenge against the rejection of his creator, Victor feels compelled to impose revenge against the monster as a result of his own role in the deaths of his loved ones. Not only does he feel responsible for their deaths, but also he is compelled to bring justice to the one who physically committed the crimes.

Thus, Victor thinks it is acceptable for him to kill the monster, but it is not justified for the monster to kill anyone. But is death really a just punishment for the monster? First, if he truly feels responsible for the murders, then why does the monster deserve to die, but he does not?

This reveals an ethical problem facing our current legal system as we remain one of the only free nations in the world still practicing capital punishment.

Often we justify the execution of a criminal by proving them a threat to society, and thus, we take one life in order to save another. But if the perpetrator is a threat to society, how are they any less of a future threat with a needle in their arm than they are serving a life sentence in prison?

Therefore, we see our own system parallels the attitudes of Victor and the monster as it often seems motivated by revenge rather than justice.

Although they both act outside of the law, attempting vigilante justice, both the monster and Victor fail to attain the justice they fervently seek. Thus, Justine is executed to avenge the murder, regardless of whether or not the evidence proves her guilt.

The failure of the justice system to achieve justice actually parallels the actions of Victor and the creature. Instead, it perpetuates injustice as its quest to avenge one murder leads to another.

Once the court finds a piece of circumstantial evidence connecting Justine to the crime, they logically deduce from her actions around the time of the murder and her relationship to the Frankenstein family that she indeed is guilty.

But even though little corroborating evidence exists which links her to the crime, the system believes its hypothesis completely reasonable. Ironically, it is this strong belief in reason which actually leads them away from justice, rather than toward it.However, after class on Wednesday, February 28, you should also gain insight into another important interface between the two professions: the death penalty (executions).

In fact, the topic is enjoying the spotlight as the focal point of several current events. The death penalty can only be carried out: with a specific kind of rabbinic court (which we don't have today)-after the sinner has been caught in the act, warned by two people eligible to testify in a rabbinic court, and then IMMEDIATELY commits the same act again, in front of the same witnesses.

Sparking much controversy and anxiety in the hearts of American citizens is the ethical dilemma of the death penalty. The death penalty, as a form of punishment, is given to those who commit crimes deemed by society and government as . The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much.

Hang 'em high!

Some family members of crime victims may take years or decades to recover from the shock and loss of a loved one. Some may never recover.

The Debate Over Capital Punishment - The debate over capital punishment has been raging on for countless number of years. Capital punishment has been used for thousands of years due to the physiological fear it inflicts on the people who witness and learn about the death penalty.

Animal rights is ethically justified, in the fact that it's basic principle lies in the foundations of the value of life. If you believe that animal rights is unjustified then you also .