Example research essay topic: Eye For An Eye Put To Death - 1,870 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

... a killer is the ultimate proof of the value society puts on the life of the killers victim. Over a century ago, John Stuart Mill made a concurring statement to British Parliament: He who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself, and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his life, this shall. Also, society is a main interest of supporters, as they feel that when crimes are reprehensible enough, the perpetrators should be sentenced to death; they have lost their right to live in society.

Also of importance to proponents of the death penalty is the sanctity of human feelings. Proponents regard public retribution as important because it shows a collective self-expression of society's revulsion about the heinousness of the crime that was committed, (Information Plus 103). Revenge, akin to public retribution, is not just a judgment about what is best for society, but more importantly what is best for the family members and other close survivors closure. To many, the first feeling is to make the wrong righted, and since the victims life cannot be restored, the next best thing is to take vengeance upon the perpetrator. Victims often look forward to the act of execution, to have this satisfaction. Prevalent morality in opposition perceives the use of the death penalty as furthering a cycle of violence, doing nothing better than murder murderers.

Also, abolitionists suggest that it teaches society that violence is the way to solve conflicts. They argue that revenge is a personal emotion not to be involved in the judicial process at all, and that the death penalty is merely a substitution for this personal vengeance. Abolitionists do not disregard the victims, as some victims are abolitionists. For example, the Franciscan Sisters of Mary Immaculate, of Amarillo, Texas, appealed for mercy on behalf of Johnny Frank Great, who had raped and murdered an elderly member of their order, Sister Take Benz. The nuns issued a statement protesting Garrett's death sentence long after the brutal murder, as his execution day approached: We are still convinced, ten years later that faithfulness to Jesus Christ and to our founder, St. Francis, requires of us that we forgive Johnny Frank Garret Today, nearly every large religious body in the United States has a strong statement condemning the death penalty.

These communities policies are important because these religions represent thousands upon thousands of active followers whose strong spiritual convictions will not allow their rulers to kill any longer. Accordingly, these members votes and endorsements matter greatly to politicians, who may win or lose campaigns based solely on their capital punishment policy. Essentially, faith-based opponents of the death penalty believe that it is not their part in life to seek vengeance, moreover, that only a higher power could make judgment on such situations. Such opponents argue that the federal and state government should never have the right to say who lives or dies. One such religion in opposition to the death penalty is Buddhism. It has some of the most clear-cut convictions against capital punishment.

Within it, there are ten fundamental precepts, and the first of which is "I am reverential and mindful of all life. I am not violent. I do not kill, " (Zen). That very well sums up their stance. One of the other precepts says "I keep my mind calm and at peace. I do not indulge in anger. " Another says, "I am humble.

I do not praise myself or judge others, " (Zen). Another religion of the world, Islam, seems to call for the death penalty, especially because of portrayal in popular media. Its hard to believe that this may not be the case, since the only four countries on Earth other than the United States that execute children are Islamic countries. However, its simply not true that Islamic teaching supports the death penalty. The word Muslim actually means "one who practices peace. " One of the root words of Islam is salaam peace.

Within the Koran in Sura 23: 93 comes, "repel evil with that which is fairer, " (Koran). One such evil is for the state to kill someone in vengeance in an attempt to make things right. This punishment is clearly working from no higher moral stance than the murderer himself. The call for peace is primary in Judaism also. Just as salaam is an important concept in Islam, the same word in Hebrew, shalom, is central to the Jewish tradition. There are certainly places in Mosaic Law that calls for the death penalty, yet many rabbis who have elaborated on it have opposed capital punishment.

Rabbi Asia, one of the great rabbis of the second century C. E. , said that if he had been in the Sanhedrin (the rabbinic high court), no one would ever have been sentenced to death. Opposition to the death penalty comes from the prophetic tradition. The Mosaic law isnt the whole of the Hebrew Bible, but only a part. The prophets taught that it is not the death of the sinner that God wants, but that the sinner would make repentance and atonement. Verses from the prophets say this explicitly.

Theres a famous Talmudic story about a rabbi besieged by robbers each day as hes walking home (Essential Talmud). After this happens several times, he begins praying for the death of these robbers. His wife criticizes him for doing so, and says, "How dare you pray for the death of these robbers; you should pray that they would make atonement and turn away from their evil ways, " (Essential Talmud). The rabbi changes his prayer and because he prays for them to make atonement, they do. The idea that everyone is a partner with God in the creation means that all must have an opportunity for redemption. Redemption is universal within the Jewish traditional is available no matter what has been done.

Also from Judaism comes the phrase, an eye-for-an-eye and a tooth-for-a-tooth, which was established as a rule of thumb to address criminal justice. Today, this is one of the most popular slogans used to justify state-sanctioned killing. This phrase was originally coined in ancient Jewish civilizations only to limit the amount of retribution that could be sought. Before the rules establishment, individuals were expected to take vengeance on those who wronged them, leaving the weak vulnerable to domination by the strong (Kronenwetter 7). With this law though, one couldnt do more than what was done to them, a new concept introduced in a world where there was almost no law or limitation on violence (Garris). It was never a requirement that people take revenge, and was rarely used in Jewish culture.

Themes of vengeance and judgment extend into Christianity as well. When Jesus was confronted with a woman caught in the act of adultery, which was then a capital offense, he said, "let the one without sin throw the first stone. " Everyone had to walk away. It was not for the townspeople to seek vengeance, but moreover that only God could make judgment on the situation. Christian tradition decrees that all are children of God. Similarly then, who other than God would have the right to say who lives or dies?

Another basic message of the Christian tradition is to love your neighbor and certainly imposing the death penalty is not a part of this love. On the whole, the Christian Scriptures are about compassion and community these are central themes. Often overlooked is the teaching from Matthew 5: You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say to you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Jesus himself was put to death by the state, and innocent of no heinous crime as well. Also from the Bible comes the commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

One doesnt have to be particularly religious or spiritual to be morally opposed to executions. Whether people value life, justice, love, equality, forgiveness, capital punishment is often just incompatible with their ethics. Still, morals can be so powerful and strong that are impossible to push onto opponents. When people believe in retribution and revenge, it is their own opinion, which is just as important as the next. Peoples ideology and inclinations must be equally honored by all, so that we may hold true to our basic human rights. Since this is the case, the full debate against capital punishment cannot be made solely with moral principles.

It must include practical fact-based issues in which people share common ground. One practical issue of capital punishment is the humanity of executions. Among the possibilities of electrocution, asphyxiation by gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection, and firing squad, the most popular method of execution is lethal injection. Since 1976, 573 inmates have been put to death in this way (DPIC). The injection is a deadly mixture of poisonous drugs that are injected into the veins to cause quick and painless death.

This method, similar to the others like asphyxiation and hanging, is yet another example of how theory and practice so often collide in capital punishment. The theory is that executions should be quick, painless, and merciful. Much controversy arises around defining whether certain methods are or are not cruel and unusual, and thus, possibly unconstitutional according to the Eighth Amendment. The main problem with all the methods to determine constitutionality is that it is very hard to see if the prisoner is being tortured or not while they are being killed. It would be challenging to find an unbiased volunteer to be put to death, and quickly explain if they feel they are being cruelly and inhumanely treated as they are being hung, suffocated, poisoned, or shot.

Until then, the U. S. government is content assuming that these dying criminals feel fine. To shed some light on this dilemma, the Death Penalty Information Center has released reports on the following case studies involving several execution methods: On May 24, 1989, the state of Texas put Stephen McCoy to death by lethal injection (Kronenwetter 51). He had such a violent physical reaction to the drugs (heaving chest, gasping, choking, back arching off the gurney, etc. ) that one of the witnesses (male) fainted, crashing into and knocking over another witness. Houston attorney Karen Zellars, who represented McCoy and witnessed the execution, thought the fainting would catalyze a chain reaction.

The Texas Attorney General admitted the inmate "seemed to have a somewhat stronger reaction, " adding "The drugs might have been administered in a heavier dose or more rapidly. " Another example of lethal injection happened on March 10, 1992 in Oklahoma (Kronenwetter 52). Robyn Lee Parks had a violent reaction to the drugs used in the lethal injection. Two minutes after the drugs were dispensed, the muscles in his jaw, neck, and abdomen began to react spasmodically for approximately 45 seconds. Parks continued to gasp and violently gag until death came, some eleven minutes after the drugs were first administered. Tulsa World reporter Wayne Greene wrote that the execution looked painful, ugly, and scary. Furthermore, It was o

Research essay sample on Eye For An Eye Put To Death