Capital punishment has been enforced by every government since the dawn of time. Capital
punishment was the most severe punishment that a person could pay for committing a heinous crime against the
society that person was supposedly a part of. A person was forced to lose their life for committing horrible acts
against humanity, but how can humanity try to justify the loss of another life rather then make this particular rogue
work for the community in which he committed this act against? Why should it be justified for a group of people
in supposedly high positions in their respective communities to be able to judge a human being for his misdeeds?
Why are these people so well formed in their mental states that prevents them from making unwise decisions as far
as to destroy or take another human beings life since that human being made a terrible decision?
There are certain ideals that go along with this situation. Life is suppose to be the one thing that was
given to human beings by God or a supreme being other then ourselves. If a human being were to take another
human being’s life then the aggressor would have to go on trial that would let him be judged by a group of his
peers. Upon the verdict of guilt in taking the other human being’s life the group of peers will now have to decide
that person’s fate or future. These people deciding the aggressor’s future do not have the right to take the
aggressor’s life for it is unrealistic to justify one murder with another murder just for the sake of an eye for an eye.
The ideal human would sentence this aggressive human being to a sentence of servitude to try and repay
society for the life in which he took unjustly and so that some good may become of this tragedy. The ideal human
being would not try to take the aggressive human being’s life just for the mere fact that since the aggressive human
being had murdered someone that they should also perish. Is it more justified to perish at the hands of many then
at the hand of one?
The virtues that are lived by a justice, wholesomeness, the right of life, and hard work. The virtue of
justice because it is not just to take one human being’s life for another but it is just to make them serve the society
in which they tried to destroy. The aggressive human being learns the virtue of family wholesomeness when he
has to serve the needy so they can try to provide better lives for their families. The aggressive human being learns
the right to life because over the many years that he may have to serve his sentence he learns that it was wrong for
him to take another human being’s life and that it should not have been even thought of yet attempted. The
aggressive human being also learns the virtue of hard work for he has to work very hard to serve the society in
which he has wronged by the disgraceful crime of murder.
As the person who has been chosen to judge the aggressive human on this matter my obligations are to the
society which has been wronged by the aggressor. It is my duty to try and rid my society of this vermin once and
for all. There is no excuse for what this man has done and since he murdered another human being in cold blood
then it is my responsibility to society to sentence the maximum penalty --DEATH! Can I live with the guilt of
sentencing a man to death though? It is true that I may not have “pulled the trigger” but it was my decision that
killed a man, but it is my responsibility to rid society of such vermin.
The consequences of my decision will affect not only this man, but his family, the feeling of society
toward such acts, and my own sense of being. The decision I make will affect this man obviously but it will also
affect his family. The long term actions of my decision again will affect the aggressor’s family if there is one to be
affected and it will also affect not only my mental stability but it will help others judge the society in which I live
on what kind of society it is. If someone from another society