FREE ESSAY ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Capital Punishment
Capital punishment has become an increasingly controversial issue over the past two
decades. The problem lies between the extremes, is the death penalty an acceptable form
of punishment or should it be abolished altogether? Some believe that having the death
penalty will not deter a person from committing a crime. Others believe that the death
penalty will set an example and deter anyone from committing murder. This debate is a
complicated one. Capital punishment is a legal, practical, philosophical, social,
political, and moral question. I do believe that the death penalty will discourage a
person from committing a crime and thereby make society a safer place.
Capital punishment should be legalized in all states because it is morally just and will
discourage violent acts of crime. No other punishment would deter a person from
committing a crime, so effectively, than the death penalty. In fact if a person commits
such a violent act, then they should expect that their punishment fit their crime. A
murderer would then deserve to die and it would be their own fault for putting themselves
on death row. Society has the right to kill someone in order to protect itself, just as
an individual has the right of self defense for his or her own personal safety. Ancient
Roman law was understood as an eye for an eye. And of course, I can't forget the ancient
Egyptians and the most popular person to executed, Jesus Christ. People who spill the
blood of another should have their own blood spilt. It may sound a tad bit harsh but
think, what can a murderer possibly offer society?
Smith 2 
People who wish to abolish capital punishment argue that it is not morally correct to
murder a murderer. However I choose to disagree, because the one book in which most
people base their morals on says otherwise. In the bible (Genesis 9:6), it says that
whosoever sheds man's blood, by man may his blood be shed. The punishment fits the crime
therefore it is morally just. The respect for life requires the use of the death penalty.
It is morally right to sentence a person to the death penalty who has committed a serious
crime as murder. If someone has murdered a person it is unethical to let the murderer
live when you have an innocent person who is dead.
Society as a whole can be protected by the use of capital punishment. The death penalty
would protect society in that it would not let a killer have the ability to kill again.
People who wish to abolish capital punishment would say that condemning a person to death
removes any chance of rehabilitation. The truth of the matter is that those who have
killed have already gone to far and cannot go back to leading normal lives.
Rehabilitation is a myth. The government does not know how to rehabilitate a convict,
obvious by the fact that there are so many repeat killers. As far as the life-sentence is
concerned, there is just not enough room for all the convicts. Overcrowded prisons make
it easier for people, who might be close to returning to a safe level, to get out ahead
of their time. Soon it will be just chaotic, Max, even though you killed thirteen people
in three years, we have to make room for Bob whose killed fifteen people. See ya later
and enjoy your freedom. The death penalty would make it so a killer would never have the
chance to kill again.
The two main reasons that capital punishment should be legalized is that it is morally
just and it will deter future criminals. The way our society is today we need to continue
on with the 
Smith 3
death penalty. It discourages murders and it protects our society. Clearly, the usage of
the death penalty will force crime to be unacceptable in our world and protect our
citizens. Not all crimes should be treated with the death penalty. The punishment should
fit the crime. If a criminal performs a premeditated murder they should be put to death.
It's that simple. Repeat offenders and people who enjoy killing do not deserve to walk
our street. It is important to send a message to all future thrill-killers that taking a
life means that they will have to face the ultimate consequences----death.


  
    
      Can`t find essay here? Order custom written term paper. We offer high quality
      and quick writing for only $12.95 per page!
    
  





Second Treatise Of Government By John Locke
n the Second Treatise of Government by John Locke, he writes about the right to private
property. In the chapter which is titled "Of Property" he tells how the right to private
property originated, the role it plays in the state of nature, the limitations that are
set on the rights of private property, the role the invention of money played in property
rights and the role property rights play after the establishment of government.. In this
chapter Locke makes significant points about private property. In this paper I will
summarize his analysis of the right to private property, and I will give my opinion on
some of the points Locke makes in his book. According to Locke, the right to private
property originated when God gave the world to men. Locke makes the argument that when
God created the world for man, he gave man reason to make use of the world to the best
advantage of life, and convenience. What he means by that is, that God made this world
for man, and when he made it he gave man the right to use what is in this world to his
benefit. Locke explains that every man has property in his own person, and that nobody
has any right to that property but that person. The author states that "whatsoever then
he removes out of the state of nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his
labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his
property (Locke pg. 19)". What Locke means by that statement is that once a person
removes something out of its original state of nature that something becomes that persons
property. After someone gains this property are there any limitations on that property?
Locke believes that there are limitations on that property. Locke believes that God has
given us all things richly, and that man may use those things as long as he takes what he
needs. Men can have property as long as they obtained it rightfully, and as long as they
use discretion. If those limitations were overlooked when the person was getting the
property the property was not obtained rightfully. In the chapter the rights of property,
Locke tells the role that the invention of money plays in property rights. Money was
invented because people were abusing their property rights. With the creation of money
things were given value, and this invention prevented people from taking more than they
could afford. Money was an invention that men could keep without spoiling. Men could
exchange money for truly useful, but perishable supports of life. This invention plays a
big role in the property rights. Now that there is money people have to use that money to
get what they need instead of taking whatever they want as was the case before the
invention of money. According to Locke, individual property rights change after
government was established. He believes that in governments, the laws regulate the right
of property, and the possession of land is determined by positive constitutions. Before
the establishment of government Americans had the rights to property as long as they used
it before it spoiled, and as long as they didn't take more than they needed, and as long
as they obtained it rightfully. After government, there were laws and restrictions
pertaining to property. These laws and restrictions were established to secure protection
of those who had property. I believe that some of Locke's views on the rights to private
property are right. I agree with his thoughts of the way property rights originated, the
limitations he said were placed on property rights, and his thoughts of why money was
invented. I also agree with his take on the role property rights played after government
was established. I think that government plays a very important part in the protection of
property. Without the laws that are made by the government there would be many problems
with property rights. People still have the right to have any property they want as long
as they can afford it and as long as it is obtained properly. The points that Locke makes
in the chapter Of property are very important and pertain to American society today. I
feel that he was extremely accurate in some of his views and he is an important figure in
world history.