The Taking
of Human Life
(MLA Format)
(Name of the writer appears here)
(Name of the instructor appears here)
(The course title appears here)
(Date appears here)
The Taking of Human Life
According to law, the judges must consider the critical
issues in order to decide whether a person found guilty
of murder or the grave offence punishable by death should
receive a capital sentence or life imprisonment. These
include firstly: whether the conduct of the defendant
that caused the death of the deceased was committed
deliberately and with a reasonable expectation that
the death of the deceased or another would result. Secondly:
whether there is a probability that the defendant would
commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute
a continuing threat to society; and thirdly: if raised
by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant
in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response
to the provocation, if any, by the deceased. In case
of Mr. Michael McDermott all the three aspects were
proved and according to the prevailing law of the State
the Maximum punishment was awarded.
The Punishment
The sentence to one who is found guilty of the offence,
in which he deprives some one from his right to live,
puts the family members on the path of troubles and
deprives the chain of people from their legitimate life
facilities can be as severe as possible. For petty demands
like increase in wages and other minor issues killing
some one innocent, is brutal and demands no mercy. Till
the time the murderer is alive the effected families
will keep on suffering the fact that the one who deprived
them is not deprived him self.
The Award of Capital Punishment
Support and opposition of capital punishment is still
persisting. The presence or absence of capital punishment
or executions does not visibly influence the rate of
homicide. In the matter of justice it is important to
note that for any damage caused by some one to other,
property, belongings or life, the deprived should be
compensated for the equal amount of damage. In case
of little more or little less the justice will not prevail.
Therefore if the loss is worth 1000 dollars the fine
of 1000 dollars will have to be made and given to the
effected.
Opposing the Capital Punishment
Those who oppose the capital punishment assert that
it is degrading to the humanity of the person punished
with death. Since the 18th century, those who wish to
abolish the death penalty have stressed the significance
of requiring governments to recognize the importance
of each individual. Critics of capital punishment contend
that it is brutal and degrading, while supporters consider
it a necessary form of retribution (revenge) for terrible
crimes. The death penalty is also seen as a human rights
issue involving the proper limits of governmental power.
The most compelling argument against capital punishment,
however, is based on its actual administration in our
society: the risk of killing an innocent person, disproportionate
infliction on the poor and minorities, weakness of the
deterrence argument, failure to recognize that destructive
life histories of criminals may have damaged their humanity
to the point that it is unfair to hold them fully accountable
for their wrongdoing, and so on. (Kenneth Cauthen, 1997)
Favoring the Capital Punishments
Those who favor capital punishment base their reasons
on justice and the nature of a moral community, which
requires that each person respect the life and liberty
of others. Those who commit vicious crimes destroy the
basis on which a moral community rests and forfeit their
rights to citizenship. The capital punishment self-evidently
prevents more crime because death is so much more feared
than mere restrictions on one's liberty. Protection
of the innocent requires that criminals be isolated,
perhaps permanently. Just punishment is appropriate,
but love never gives up even on those who show no love.
(Kenneth Cauthen, 1997) Capital punishment advocates
note that because the death penalty is reserved for
the most aggravated murders, the deterrent effect of
capital punishment on such crimes may not be apparent
in data on homicide rates in general. The deterrent
effect of the death penalty cannot not be proven or
disproved with any certainty in the absence of conclusive
proof that the threat of execution might not save some
people from being killed, therefore the capital punishment
should be retained.
Revenge Killing
It is inherent in human nature to take revenge of the
offence committed against him if he feels that appropriate
punishment has not been granted to the criminal. Primarily
the crime is a matter between the criminal and the one
against whom the same has been committed; therefore
the mater of punishment also has to be considered keeping
the satisfaction of the grieved one. If this fact is
not considered the likelihood of taking the law in hand
by the grieved will always be there. Although taking
life of innocent is not justified but the one who commits
murder must also shed away his life. (Cullen, T. Clark.
1985)
Premeditated killings
There are only two reasons to kill some one, Firstly,
by fault and secondly, with intention. In case of a
death being caused as a result of accident and mistakenly
the punishment to him can be lesser. Where the killing
was intentional and having known the social and other
effects the criminal should not be dealt on the basis
of mercy but ruthlessly dealt so that the quantity of
such killings is reduced if not completely eliminated.
Therefore prosecutions efforts to put great emphasis
on the deliberate nature of killing seem justified.
Hence premeditated killings should be punished severely.
References
" Kenneth Cauthen. 1997. Chapter Eight, Toward
a New Modernism, Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
151-165.
|
