- Published: January 4, 2022
- Updated: January 4, 2022
- University / College: The University of Newcastle, Australia (UON)
- Level: Doctor of Philosophy
- Language: English
- Downloads: 27
Capital punishment Capital punishment does not serve as a deterrence and data on history of death penalty sentences supports this. Mandery reports that data since the year 1983 the number of defendants sentenced to serve the penalty increased. This means that previous death sentences did not have significant effects on prospective criminals, otherwise the crimes and the penalties would have reduced (Mandery 472, 473).
Capital punishment is not necessarily a violation of the eighth amendment because of the abstract scope of the amendment on the cruel and unusual limitation of punishment. Similarly, previous death sentences, under the judicial doctrine of precedents, justify the penalty as usual. The fact that a defendant has committed a crime that is as cruel as the death sentence means that the defendant is not justified to argue for cruelty of the sentence (Mandery 473).
Life without parole is a more humane and pragmatic alternative because it achieves justice to victims and preserves humanity. In holding defendants, it eliminates them from the society and therefore reduces risks of crimes associated with the people. It therefore ensures justice and preserves morality.
Response to the post
The position that the post assumes omits some information that could change its position on the issues. Incidence of death penalties remained high and this indicated its ineffectiveness as deterrence. Similarly, the eighth amendment is not clear on what is cruel and unusual, based on different crimes. I however agree that life imprisonment without parole is a better alternative because it keeps criminals from the society and because death penalty proved ineffective.
Works cited
Mandery, Evan. Capital punishment in America: A balanced examination. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011. Print.