...The right of the state to end one's life has been argued in a variety of ways in descent from eternal law, natural law, and positive law. Exactly what is the nature of this law and one's relation or participation to such frames the major argument. Is there a right to perform the act of an execution on an individual for any particular crime? “Arguing from the eternal law position would posit an immutable, infallible entity or law that is the support for our existence.” http://www.essential.org/dpic/ the human being does not qualify to dictate from this descending power. The duty to fulfill the authority outweighs any other particular individual consideration. The argument of natural law is used by both religious and materialist philosophy. This case basically has centered on what is not in violation of the functioning of the laws of nature, which are independent of human interference. In this paper the arguments whether capital punishment is moral or if it is effective in discouraging crime, will be viewed from both sides of the argument. Many oppose the death penalty because they consider it cruel. Critics also believe that there is a risk of executing mistakenly convicted people. Supporters of the death penalty believe that in some instances, people who take another human life deserve to forfeit their own lives. Many supporters also argue that the threat of death discourages crime. One argument states that the death penalty does not deter murder. Dismissing capital punishment on that basis requires us to eliminate all prisons as well because they do not seem to be any more effective in the deterrence of crime. Others say that states which do have the death penalty have higher crime rates than those that don't, that a more severe punishment only inspires more severe crimes. I must point out that every state in the union is different. These differences include...
