Argument: Death penalty addresses crimes where victim can't be compensated
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
- Debate: Death penalty, pro.
Steven Farrell, professor of political economy at George Wythe College. "A Conservative Case for the Capital Punishment". 18 Mar. 2005 - If one robs a store, the captured thief can pay back the debt and, in fact, under biblical law (which is better than today's law) would be tasked to work for the man he robbed until the debt was satisfied seven times the value of the goods stolen. With such a bounteous payback, the thief is then freed and, by his honorable labor, restored to a position of trust..." Farrell continues that murder is not a repayable crime, that society can never again trust that person, and that this means they permanently forfeit all rights as a citizen, including the right to life.
Steven Farrell, professor of political economy at George Wythe College. "A Conservative Case for the Capital Punishment". 18 Mar. 2005 - As harsh a sentence as death is, the penalty fits the crime. Murder is a crime for which the victim cannot come back and say, 'I refuse to press charges.' The victim has no voice.
Edgar Hoover, late director of Federal Bureau of Investigations. - Have you ever thought about how many criminals escape punishment, and yet, the victims never have a chance to do that? Are crime victims in the United States today the forgotten people of our time? Do they receive full measure of justice (as cited in Isenberg, 1977, p. 129)?
A criminal on death row has a chance to prepare his death, make a will, and make his last statements, etc. while some victims can never do it. There are many other crimes where people are injured by stabbing, rape, theft, etc. To some degree at least, the victims right to freedom and pursuit of happiness is violated.
When the assailant is apprehended and charged, he has the power of the judicial process who protects his constitutional rights. What about the victim? The assailant may have compassion from investigating officers, families and friends. Furthermore, the criminal may have organized campaigns of propaganda to build sympathy for him as if he is the one who has been sinned against. These false claims are publicized, for no reason, hence, protecting the criminal (Isenberg, I., 1977).