Atkinson’s Death Penalty Article: Rebuttal Argument Essay

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

The term “death penalty” refers to a state-authorized punishment where a career felon is condemned to death. The term “restorative justice” refers to the restoration of a criminal through rapprochement with victims, their families, and the impacted community. When it came to the legality of it as a sentence, the death sentence has always been a contentious subject. Regardless of unrealistic and irrelevant assertions about therapeutic jurisprudence, the death sentence is an efficient deterrence and punishment mechanism when seen within the context of vigilante justice and as a part of the current legal system.

Arguments from a rehabilitative perspective are meaningless and impracticable because the U.S. and the world’s current justice systems are largely retributive. Despite the current disciplinary emphasis of the U.S. criminal justice system, the government still has some roots in frugal habits (Atkinson, 2018). Even if the concepts of restorative justice are taken into account, the death sentence is the harshest form of punishment and is only used in situations where there is no hope of repair, such as when many lives have been lost. Even though it is less successful against minor examples of ideological crimes, such as extremist religious fundamentalists, the death penalty is nevertheless a powerful deterrent for capital offenses.

In conclusion, when considered within the context of criminal punishment and as a component of the current justice system, the death sentence is an effective deterrence and punitive measure, regardless of irrelevant rehabilitative claims. The reader should consider whether the death penalty is plausible and consistent with retributive justice principles. Regulations should also take into account the fundamentals of how the American judicial system actually works today. The assertions made in the analysis are essential because they strive to pragmatically refocus the discussion’s ideas on what is applicable and practical.

Reference

Atkinson, D. V. (2018). . Center for American Progress. Web.

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2023, December 30). Atkinson's Death Penalty Article: Rebuttal Argument. https://ivypanda.com/essays/atkinsons-death-penalty-article-rebuttal-argument/

Work Cited

"Atkinson's Death Penalty Article: Rebuttal Argument." IvyPanda, 30 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/atkinsons-death-penalty-article-rebuttal-argument/.

References

IvyPanda. (2023) 'Atkinson's Death Penalty Article: Rebuttal Argument'. 30 December.

References

IvyPanda. 2023. "Atkinson's Death Penalty Article: Rebuttal Argument." December 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/atkinsons-death-penalty-article-rebuttal-argument/.

1. IvyPanda. "Atkinson's Death Penalty Article: Rebuttal Argument." December 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/atkinsons-death-penalty-article-rebuttal-argument/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Atkinson's Death Penalty Article: Rebuttal Argument." December 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/atkinsons-death-penalty-article-rebuttal-argument/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
1 / 1