Vanderbilt Law School debate on the Death penalty - Essay Example

Owing to the above details provided, the opponent of death penalty, Dr. Ken Haas, was more convincing in his argument (Haas and Marquis). Death penalty is not only about liberal or conservative politics but also about the moral choices of this nation. This dispels any notion that the death penalty debate is about conservative and liberal politics. The proponent of the death penalty elaborates that this form of punishment should only be utilized on the most heinous criminals. As such, most murder convicts would not face execution since the majority would not repeat their actions.

Convicts such Mohamed who repeatedly killed innocent civilians should face such severe punishment. This is because they have proved clearly that they had the intent to commit the crime repeatedly. On a moral basis, this punishment is unacceptable owing to the sacred nature of life. However, the proponent reveals that this severe disciplinary measure has a deterrent effect on criminals. According to the research cited, it reveals that the penalty saves hundred of innocent civilians. Overall, this punishment is immoral, but the justice system should have this option owing to some extreme scenarios that require measures.

The death penalty is inappropriate but a legal necessity (Haas and Marquis). Death penalty has caused a lot of controversy even among judges. Subsequently, in 1985 some judges were deemed unfit to partake in court proceedings since their views would impede their ability to make fair decisions in line with the existing statutes. The opponent thinks that the research on the deterrent effect of execution is a culmination of defective research. The assumption in this kind of research is rationality.

However, most criminal who will face such punishments as execution have limited options. The only possible punishment is a life sentence without a chance for parole. Therefore, both punishments are severe. Hence, it will have no deterrent