Table of Contents
I agree that capital punishment goes against the intrinsic value of human life. As such the perpetrators of heinous acts that destroy other human’s lives should not face the same harsh punishment, but instead should be punished within the proscribed legal framework. Despite advocating for fair treatment, even terrorist such as McVeigh who caused death of innocent lives should be treated with dignity as a respect of human life and aspect of morality. Masterminds of terrorist acts should not be faced with the death penalty; instead the law should be applied on their disciplinary as proscribed. More so, people who seek the death penalty to achieve martyrdom should not be granted. Termination of human life is against the premise of morality (Hugo, 1997, p.245-247). In reference to Albert Camus argument, it is true that capital punishment contradicts to what it advocates. It applies harsher disciplinary measures to wrongdoers while the policies on treatment of humans prohibit such. The social contact theory provides that rational individuals accept some behaviors on condition that others accept them, as well. Therefore, if, majority accepts the course, such an act does not contradict morality as morals represent acts which are socially acceptable. Based on this, if an individual commits heinous act that is considered heroic in their motherland, than the decision of the majority in the foreign land prevails.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
In search of justice, the test should not be taken into consideration as the basis of imposing fines on wrongdoers. This is because, individual behavior is controllable, and in the event someone fails to control his or her behavior, the full force of law should be applied. The law that guides on the sentence imposed on minors should be applied uniformly (Jeffrey, 1985, p. 145-146). As such, even if the act of a minor causes death, the same laws that are applied on minors should be applied. Conscience is the inner person that helps someone to choose between good and evil. According to Plato, sociopaths are not humans and, therefore, laws passed as disciplinary measures for humans should not be applied. Moreover, the law should be lenient for people who are disadvantaged by genetic lottery. Considering death penalty as immoral, it should not be applied as a form of punishment. In addition, transferring the offender to a different planet is also against morals. In such a case life imprisonment could serve as the best option.
The moral principle advocate for natural death and by all means, assisted death is considered to be immoral, irrespective of the magnitude of suffering (James & Stephen, 1983, p.81). Therefore, Careen should be left to meet natural death. Irrespective of an individual position, euthanasia still contradicts the moral principles and should be objected by all means. Traditionally, women were seen as inferior and, therefore, burdened by the rest of society. As such, Judith should be left to make her own choices other than decision emanating from any other individual. It is true that safe environment and security are indispensable necessities. However, absolute right of physician to terminate the lives of terminally ill patients threatens patient’s security as the doctor can possess all rights to terminate the life of terminally ill individuals without following the due course.
Conclusion
The existence of the death penalty and capital punishment within the legal system is worrying. In addition, presence of the death penalty contradicts the modern policies thus negating the capacity of nations to realize their preferences of achieving criminal justice within their jurisdiction. As such, countries are currently re-evaluating their penal code since the presence of the death penalty undermines seems to justice.