- Aug 26, 2009
- 36
- 2
- 36
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Retention of the death penalty
The arguments in favour of retaining the death penalty are based on one or another of the following views:
It is the only form of punishment which provides society with absolute protection by permanently removing the criminals in question from society.
There is no suitable alternative. Life imprisonment is inappropriate for the following reasons:
--- A prisoner serving a life sentence in South Africa may be considered for parole after 20 years.
--- A person like this could still be a threat to fellow prisoners and the correctional staff.
--- Such an offender could escape.
It operates as a unique general deterrent and serious crime might increase should the death penalty be abolished.
People might take the law into their own hands if the death penalty were not imposed by the state.
Both the Bible and the Koran justify it on religious grounds.
Public opinion is in favour of the death penalty.
It is a terminal form of punishment which is essential for ensuring respect for the law.
In some cases, the criminal does not have the opportunity to reform.
It is the only form of punishment in which the "eye for an eye" principle is realised fully.
Long-term detention of prisoners serving life sentences constitutes an unnecessary financial burden on the taxpayers.
In a violent society where many people believe that crime levels are uncontrollable, the state is duty bound to perform a symbolic act (executions) to stem this tide.
and
Abolition of the death penalty
The arguments of those people who are opposed to the death penalty, are as follows:
There is insufficient empirical evidence to prove that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment.
This form of punishment contributes to the cycle of violence in a society.
Abolition of the death penalty is an international trend.
There are religious objections to the death penalty.
It is an irrevocable form of punishment. The irreversible finality of the death penalty should be taken into account in the light of the fallible process of law in which the death penalty is passed.
The act of taking a human life does not create respect for life.
The death penalty overemphasises the retribution objective at the expense of the rehabilitation and restoration objective.
The arbitrary and discretionary nature of this form of punishment makes it unacceptable.
It conflicts with the constitutional right to life and debases human dignity because it is a cruel and inhuman form of punishment.
By inflicting the death penalty, the state reduces itself to the moral level of the offender.
Prisoners who have received the death penalty usually come from the lowest socio-economic classes and certain cultural and ethnic groups. Proportionally black people are more often sentenced to execution than the other groups in South Africa.
What side do you take? (Ok these are not in detail) and was taken from a criminology study guide
Feel free to add other sources etc
The arguments in favour of retaining the death penalty are based on one or another of the following views:
It is the only form of punishment which provides society with absolute protection by permanently removing the criminals in question from society.
There is no suitable alternative. Life imprisonment is inappropriate for the following reasons:
--- A prisoner serving a life sentence in South Africa may be considered for parole after 20 years.
--- A person like this could still be a threat to fellow prisoners and the correctional staff.
--- Such an offender could escape.
It operates as a unique general deterrent and serious crime might increase should the death penalty be abolished.
People might take the law into their own hands if the death penalty were not imposed by the state.
Both the Bible and the Koran justify it on religious grounds.
Public opinion is in favour of the death penalty.
It is a terminal form of punishment which is essential for ensuring respect for the law.
In some cases, the criminal does not have the opportunity to reform.
It is the only form of punishment in which the "eye for an eye" principle is realised fully.
Long-term detention of prisoners serving life sentences constitutes an unnecessary financial burden on the taxpayers.
In a violent society where many people believe that crime levels are uncontrollable, the state is duty bound to perform a symbolic act (executions) to stem this tide.
and
Abolition of the death penalty
The arguments of those people who are opposed to the death penalty, are as follows:
There is insufficient empirical evidence to prove that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment.
This form of punishment contributes to the cycle of violence in a society.
Abolition of the death penalty is an international trend.
There are religious objections to the death penalty.
It is an irrevocable form of punishment. The irreversible finality of the death penalty should be taken into account in the light of the fallible process of law in which the death penalty is passed.
The act of taking a human life does not create respect for life.
The death penalty overemphasises the retribution objective at the expense of the rehabilitation and restoration objective.
The arbitrary and discretionary nature of this form of punishment makes it unacceptable.
It conflicts with the constitutional right to life and debases human dignity because it is a cruel and inhuman form of punishment.
By inflicting the death penalty, the state reduces itself to the moral level of the offender.
Prisoners who have received the death penalty usually come from the lowest socio-economic classes and certain cultural and ethnic groups. Proportionally black people are more often sentenced to execution than the other groups in South Africa.
What side do you take? (Ok these are not in detail) and was taken from a criminology study guide
Feel free to add other sources etc
