Essay On Death Penalty Should Not Be Allowed

Man has always relied on punishment to uphold the rules that are necessary for his own and others' survival. But how can a person justify murder as a punishment for, well, murder.  This is a huge controversy that has raged our modern society for decades. One of the key points of conflict in this discussion is if we should continue to use this type of punishment for criminals. In my opinion, the death penalty should be abolished. Life without parole is a sensible alternative to the death penalty. Rawls's theory of justice revolves around the adaptation of two fundamental principles of justice which would, in turn, guarantee a just and morally acceptable society. This essay will attempt to shed some light on this highly controversial subject of the death penalty and at the same time, use Rawls's theory of justice and the Veil of Ignorance to show why the death penalty shouldn't be allowed.

Rawls's theory of justice first principle states, “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.” Rawls also said for each person to engage in activities, as long as he or she does not infringe on the rights of others. When this pinnacle is applied to the situation of the death penalty it already shows unfairness in the enforcement system. In crime cases sometimes some people are not treated fairly. Also, law enforcement doesn't follow the right procedure when it comes to criminal cases. So it would be unfair to sentence some to death if the case wasn't handled properly. The second principle states that social and economic positions are to be to everyone's advantage and open to all. When it comes to the justice system people aren't in the same economic positions and that automatically has an impact on a court decision. Also, some people can't afford to get better lawyers and other necessities when it comes to the justice system, and plays a big part in deciding whether or not someone gets a death sentence.

Another problem with the death penalty there are biases people have that could affect the sentencing of an individual. This is why we should get rid of the death penalty because pre-formed biases could be the difference between someone being sentenced to death and getting a life sentence. Also, with sentencing, we should have a veil of ignorance. We are shaped by our race, gender, class, education, appearance, and so on. On the other side of the Veil of Ignorance, none of that exists. Philosopher John Rawls suggests that we should imagine we sit behind a veil of ignorance that keeps us from knowing who we are and identifying with our circumstances. By being ignorant of our circumstances, we can more accurately consider how societies should operate technically in the resulting society should be a fair one. By not apply a veil of ignorance to our justice system when end up having incidents like the George Junius Stinney Jr. incident. George Junius Stinney Jr. was a 14-year-old African American male and he ended getting sent to the electric chair for a crime he did not commit. It took only 10 minutes to convict him. During this time racism was very high. So people are only convicted based on pre-formed bis that African Americans are violent. This case shows why we should get rid of the death penalty and why we should apply the veil of ignorance when it comes to our justice system.

The death penalty is a huge controversy that has raged our modern society for decades. One of the key points of conflict in this discussion is if we should continue to use this type of punishment for criminals. In my opinion, the death penalty should be abolished. Rawls's theory of justice and the Veil of Ignorance shows why the death penalty shouldn't be allowed. So, according to Rawls, approaching tough issues through a veil of ignorance and applying these principles can help us decide more fairly how the rules of society should be structured.