Is Capital Punishment Justified

Across the world, crimes that carry death penalty vary significantly from murder and treason to theft. According to Elson (2017), in some countries across the globe, some courts-martial have sentenced military persons to death penalty for desertion, mutiny, insubordination, and cowardice. Some countries have revised their laws and eliminated death penalty. However, in countries like the U. S and a majority of the Asian nations, capital punishment is still allowed legally. By subjecting the murderers to death penalty, it serves as a symbol of justice. When perpetrators of murder are subjected to death penalty is perceived by supporters as the only way that adequately expresses the society’s revulsion of the murder of innocent people. Thirdly, support for capital punishment emanates from the notion that it is historically recognized across global societies (Lafollette, 2018).

For example, in the instance of the U. S, when the law was written by founding fathers, they recognized and accepted death penalty as a form of punishment for major crimes and especially when it comes to retributive justice. Thirdly, capital punishment does not lead to retribution. According to Lafollette (2018), as opposed to the popular belief that capital punishment brings relief to the families of the victim, studies have revealed that family members and relatives affected by fatal and violent crimes never get comfort even if the perpetrators are subjected to death penalty. Fourthly, there is a possibility of mistakes during the trial, which may lead to a poor decision that translates to loss of life and it is irreversible even if it is found out that the convicted person was not the offender.

Thousands of suspects have won their appeals after they were convicted and sentenced to death penalty. This serves as an indication that any margin of error during the investigation process may lead to loss of an innocent life and life can never be recovered. According to Junior Scholastic (2017), annually, over 36,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. These numbers stem from horrific mass shootings to suicides and various accidents associated with gun handling. The level of weapon viciousness in the U. S is high and incomparable to any other democracy across the globe. This emanates from the fact that the other nations have tougher gun control. S President Franklin Roosevelt signed the National Firearms Act of 1934 following high-profile gangland crimes especially following the St.

Valentine Massacre in 1929 in Chicago where seven people were killed. The law imposed a tax of $200 for the transfers of shotguns, shot-barrel rifles, and machine guns while at the same time requiring registration of these weapons by gun owners. At this time, this tax was not only considered severe, but equally adequate in discouraging or in eliminating the sale of those guns. According to Qiu and Bank (2018), a strict gun control law was equally established in 1968 referred to as "The Gun Control Act of 1986" following the assassinations of King Luther Jr. The founding fathers understood the importance of the privilege to own and bear arms and deemed it essential to maintaining liberty as the other rights. However, basing the argument of tougher gun control on infringement of the Second Amendment is misguided.

According to Lafollette (2018), this emanates from the fact that firearm control laws are old or even more seasoned than the Second Amendment as even during colonial America, there were laws that governed the use of guns like ones criminalizing the transfer of guns to saves, Catholics, and Native Americans. By having stricter gun control laws, it is not an indication that Americans will be denied the constitutional right of owning firearms, rather it will only serve in ensuring that guns end up in the right hands. Additionally, there is need to examine the adverse effect of possessing guns against the benefits and if it means losing some rights to save innocent lives and for a better society, it is justified. According to Greasley (2017), any enactment that expects to control premature birth depends on an enemy of decision choice philosophy, which is opposed to the rights of women.

This ideology assumes that there is need for women to be kept in check by laws as they are unable to make the right choices in regards to their bodies and in addition families. Moreover, with regards to late-term premature births, there is an ideology perpetrated by the pro-life group that women are evil and misguided that they wait for long while conveying a pregnancy before, in the end, doing away with it. However, the ideology is untrue as there are factors that influence women into undergoing the procedure even during late pregnancy when it is risky. Furthermore, there are no positive findings associated with restricting abortion. For example, women intending to pursue their career and educational goals may be hindered by pregnancy and child-rearing process.

The decision to have an abortion is thus justified for such women in the quest to achieve the set goals and objectives in life. Like their male counterparts, women equally need promotions and other work-related benefits and continuous absence in the work environment due to pregnancy and childbearing may limit these benefits. Additionally, it is important to understand the case of teenage pregnancy and the negative effects it has on victims. If there are restrictions on abortion, it means that such a teenager will end up giving birth. S, which as a result leads to inundated social networks and establishment of slums. There is also an argument that immigrants lower the income of Americans especially those in low-skilled labor as they take the jobs at cheaper costs.

Lastly, there is a myth that immigrants are a major source of crime especially in the recent past where the threat of terrorism has been rampant in the U. S. However, all these arguments are misguided in that immigration has vast benefits to the American economy and Americans as opposed to harm. Furthermore, with an expansive tax base, it means that the American citizens will be less taxed, yet benefit from better services provided by both the federal and state governments. It is equally important to note that some of the immigrants have high-skills and thus play a major contribution towards innovation and creativity, which as a result serves as a source of growth and development of the national economy. The myth that immigrants are a source of crime has been in the public debate for over a century, but it has gained much support in the U.

S during the 21st century especially following the September 11 terrorist attacks. However, this is just a misguided myth that only serves to discourage against allowing immigrants into the U. The recent wave of public shootings by American citizens is a clear example that there is a large threat within that cannot be addressed by restricting immigrants. References Bedau, H.  A. Capital Punishment.  Oxford Handbooks Online.  A. , & Hureau, D.  M. Strong gun laws are not enough: The need for improved enforcement of secondhand gun transfer laws in Massachusetts.  Preventive Medicine, 79, 37-42. Let’s Abolish Capital Punishment.  Capital Punishment, 218-224. doi:10. 4324/9781315081809-19 Felter, C. , & Renwick, D. 0002 Junior Scholastic. (2017, February 20). Does the U. S. Need Tougher Gun-Control Laws? Retrieved from https://junior. S. Restrict Immigration? Retrieved from https://www.