Capital Punishment is Bad Public Policy

I have always believed that people should be kept away from criminals, however, going to the extent of giving them tough sentences, like, capital punishment is not right. In fact, I extremely believe that, “Capital Punishment is a Bad Public Policy”. Killing people is not right and unethical for me and I believe that justice should be sought but without vengeance and especially without further taking a life (The Florida.. , 2002).

The reasons why I say that “Capital Punishment is Bad Public Policy” include the following: First of all, capital punishment is not an appropriate sentence in any case involved. This is for the simple reason that tough sentence like capital punishment does not serve as a “payback”, or simply put, it does not lead to any kind of justice. Secondly, it definitely does not deter or discourage any negative act. Simply put, it does not reduce crime. Last but not least, it is a bad public policy, because it is not “universalizable”. It means that it may not be applicable to everyone.

Capital Punishment Does Not Lead to Justice For me capital punishment does not lead to justice since to kill a person is to meddle with God’s business and will (Ten.. , 2007). Furthermore killing another person will not lead to justice, in fact, it will lead to another case that will require justice to be achieved. Moreover, “God keep alive individuals on Earth for a purpose and executing an individual (who killed another as a result of his drunk driving) before the time of his natural death is interfering with God’s plan” (Robinson, 2005).

Also, I feel that allowing premeditated murder is wrong since it lowers the value of human life and brutalizes the society as well, it does lead to justice at all (Robinson, 2005). In addition, instead of leading to justice, it violates the belief that human is capable for change (Robinson, 2005). Plus, instead of providing justice, capital punishment will only enhance the thought that killing is a proper way of responding to individuals who wronged others (Robinson, 2005).

In addition to the aforementioned, justice which may be utilized interchangeable with the term retribution is defined as capital punishment “something done or given to somebody as punishment or vengeance for something the individual has done” (Encarta, 2007). Though some individuals believe that a murderer ought to be executed because he or she deserves or has earned the sentence of death, and although some people feel right about the saying “An eye for an eye. ”, retribution is still not a compelling approach to death penalty (Encyclopedia.. , 2000).

First of all, “the retributive notion of reprimand normally is that: a) as a foundational matter of justice, criminals are worthy of punishment; and b) chastisement ought to be equivalent to the harm done” (Encyclopedia.. , 2000). For theorists, “there exist two types of retributive castigation: a) Lex talionis or retribution which involves sentence in kind and is also usually uttered as “an eye for an eye”; and b) Lex salica or retribution which involves chastisement through costs, meaning the damage inflicted may be subject for payment or atonement” (Encyclopedia..

, 2000). However, “death penalty is most often associated to lex talionis retribution which historically came from the so-called “Babylonian Law of Hammurabi” which states that: “If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death” (Encyclopedia.. , 2000). “If it kills the son of the owner, then the son of that builder shall be put to death” (Encyclopedia.., 2000. ).

The first problem here is that, Lex talionis retribution is not “universalizable” (as philosophers label it) meaning, “it may not be consistently applied to every damage done” (Encyclopedia.. , 2000). Second is an obvious flaw here which seen in the statement, “If it [i. e. , a collapsed house] kills the son of the owner, then the child of the builder shall be killed”, which clearly shows the natural illogicality of unswerving application (Encyclopedia.., 2000).

The third problem with the Lex talionis is that it may actually be inadequate, for instance, taking the life of an individual cannot be technically considered punishment in kind if he killed, let’s say, 17 people while he was driving under the influence of a substance (Encyclopedia.. , 2000). Obviously, retribution cannot be declared as a compelling approach to death penalty (Enclopedia.. , 2000).

In addition, “the source of retributive rationalizations of capital punishment is not at all “foundational” since it is rooted in psychological feelings of vengeance which is a natural human emotion”, an impulse that should be tempered and not be used as a ground for creating laws/punishments (Encyclopedia.. , 2000). For instance, retribution because somebody died caused by drunk driving is not a compelling approach to death penalty (Encyclopedia.., 2000).

Finally, the desire for vengeance or retribution is the desire to see individuals suffer, or be punished for their action and that is unethical and morally wrong. (Honeyman, 1996) Besides, two wrongs do not make a right (Wikipedia, 2007). Punishing the drunk driver who killed another human being with death penalty is only killing another one and that doesn’t make things right at all (Wikipedia, 2007). It definitely isn’t leading to justice.