Introduction
The legality and the morality of capital punishment is one of the most debated issues today. While some people support its use, others advocate for its abolition. Individuals opposed to capital punishment believe that it is unethical and immoral (Bushman, 2014). On the other hand, the proponents of capital punishment believe that it is a helpful way of deterring crime. Capital punishment is, therefore, a controversial philosophical that presents a serious ethical conundrum. The paper seeks to establish whether capital punishment is helpful and should be allowed in certain cases or whether it should be abolished altogether. In this regard, the discussion will involve analysis of scholarly sources that are either opposed to or in support of the application of capital punishment.
Supporting Argument
According to Lantin (2017), the death penalty or any form of capital punishment negates the logic of establishing a criminal justice system which function is transforming individuals to responsible members of society. Furthermore, he argues that capital punishment is a form of legalized murder, and permitting such is tantamount to using the law to help in the elimination of individuals. He further argues that it denies an individual the right to live while simultaneously purporting to save the lives of other individuals. His main argument is that capital punishment, though widely used in countries in the US as a deterrent, has proven ineffective since people still commit severe punishments.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Lantin (2017) discusses various reasons why capital punishment is no efficient in deterring crime and is unethical and immoral, meaning that it should not be legalized the arguments are listed, studied, and discussed separately and the relevant information provided to support his claim. His study entails well-though paragraphs that are the subject of the study. The author begins by stating his argument and uses logic and practical evidence to support his claim. The author uses suitable facts and statistical data to provide evidence for his argument. As an example, he states statistics of crime rates in states with the death penalty and those without and compares them. For instance, he states that the application of capital punishment in the US has not deterred the commission of capital crimes. He also uses the opinions of other scholars to support his claim, especially in the Literature Review section. The author’s claim is credible since he cites practical examples, such as the case of the United States. The arguments in this research are not theoretical but are based on logical facts, statistics, professional opinions, and objective facts. The fact that Lantin has fully explained his arguments and provided evidence against the use of capital punishment means that his argument is logical, credible, and applicable in various places around the globe.
Opposing Argument
According to Hoyle and Lehrfreund (2019), capital punishment is a necessary evil that is necessary in some instances. The source posits that capital punishment is applied for various reasons that include deterring crime, punishing those that have committed heinous acts such as crime against humanity, and it acts as a form of justice to individuals who commit capital crimes should face. To support his claim uses India as a country that continues to apply capital punishment, albeit, in diminished proportions, and has witnessed a dramatic decline in crime, especially in capital crimes such as murder and robbery with violence. Hoyle and Lehrfreund (2019) note that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment because it helps it acts as a form retribution to the victims. In essence, people who have committed capital crimes should face capital punishment. This serves as an example for other criminals and therefore has a deterrence effect. Its central argument is that India has seen a dramatic decline in crime partly because of the severe punishment meted out on criminals. Additionally, the source points to Bangladesh that has seen a decrease of close to 15 percent in capital offense due to the use of capital punishment.
Hoyle and Lehrfreund (2019) claims are founded on reasonable and practical facts. Their use of various pieces of evidence from various authors adds to the credibility of his research. Additionally, they incorporate emotional appeal with logic, evidence, and facts to persuade the audience to see the capital punishment issue as a deterrent to crime and a formidable course of action that should be pursued to prevent the occurrence of certain classes of crimes. The author objectively presents his argument as he touches on different aspects of the issue to support his claim. His argument that capital punishment can help in saving lives, deterring crimes, and forming a just basis for the victims is not only founded in logic but is legal and ethical. Towards this end, they are successful in rooting for capital punishment.
Evaluation of Arguments from Scholarly and Non-scholarly Sources
It is worth noting that the sources and the authors try as much as possible to make a logical and credible argument. Nevertheless, the scholarly sources provide systematic studies combined with overwhelming evidence from the works by other authors that makes them more believable. For instance, the Literature Review sections provide evidence that either support or dispute the use of capital punishment from various sources that at times exceed ten. Finally, non-scholarly sources examine the issue from a single angle, meaning that they either posit that capital punishment is unethical. On the other hand, scholarly sources carry out a systematic study or review on selected sources and then make a conclusion based on evidence gathered, meaning that scholarly sources are more credible.
Conclusion
In the future, I will mostly rely on scholarly or peer-reviewed sources since they are systematic and examines various sources before making any reference. The systematic review of evidence means that I will be approaching matters from the point of the unknown and then making conclusions based on the evidence. The approach by the scholarly sources is impressive, logical, and systematic.
References
Bushman, B. (2014, Jan 19). It’s Time to Kill the Death Penalty . Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/get-psyched/201401/it-s-time-kill-the-death-penalty
Hoyle, C., & Lehrfreund, S. (2019). Contradictions in Judicial Support for Capital Punishment in India and Bangladesh: Utilitarian Rationales. Asian Journal of Criminology , 1-21. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11417-019-09304-0
Lantin, R. (2017). The Death Penalty Debate across Cultures: a Look at the Main Arguments. Aletheia University, Taiwan . Retrieved from https://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_7_No_3_March_2017/5.pdf
