Thread: I am trying to write to argue against the death penalty with information about

animals? My question is, does anything here not make much sense? These are definitely not my strongest points. Its a 10 page paper so I have to write a lot of random things.

Supporters of the death penalty may question why we do not place such importance on animals when we kill animals for food, as well as the lack of consideration towards forests and fields. I place humans above nature and animals. It sounds cruel, but I think animals are limited enough in their emotions and thought process that it is okay to kill them for food. Therefore, any method that brings humans meat is morally acceptable, regardless of its effects on the animal. There are ethical ways of treating animals, but those methods do not produce an abundance of meat. Nature wise, it is important to protect certain aspects of nature for human benefits, but not as much for nature itself. For example, a polluted environment can render it difficult for humans to breathe. Humans are more important than nature and all other species. This relates with the opposing view of the death penalty because no one should be killed, regardless of the crime committed, as human lives have more value than that. One may object to the view on animals because being superior in the aspects of intelligence and certain abilities does not mean they should be used for food. Human lives do not wholly compare to the lives of animals or to nature. Hence, compared to humans, animals lack too much complexity in emotions and thoughts and this is entirely absent in nature, which means they are not significant enough to keep from killing or damaging, respectively. Some of the same people who defend against treating animals ethically also freely squash insects.
In support of the death penalty in reference to animals, one may also argue that people who kill are no better than animals. Animals need to kill other animals to survive, but their instincts to kill are also not built upon morality. A tiger will savagely eat a deer because the tiger’s instinct is to prey on other animals for food, with no consideration of the animal’s pain, its own innocence, or living with a guilty conscience. Animals can be
compared to killing humans in this respect because, to some extent, it is a senseless act; hence, when an animal feasts on another animal, it only considers its satisfying of hunger and nothing else, because that is just how animals operate. When a human kills another human, it can be said that there is little sense involved because an eye for an eye is a savage, illogical way of order. Unlike an animal, a human being can thoroughly think about the consequences, consider their future state of mind, or permeate violent thoughts with a sense of sympathy for the other person or their family, which can all be factors for stopping ourselves from killing another person.
Although no animal is truly senseless, they do not have a similar capability to act as thoughtfully as humans do. They are more reckless and spontaneous. Even though we are not sure where the word “harebrained” comes from, it would be no surprise then that some derogatory insults could have originated from animal characteristics. Although I do not think it is right to ridicule animals, harebrained, possibly originating from a hare, which is a rabbit-like animal with long, floppy ears, means foolish or flighty. Hence, hares, although known for good jumping ability, are supposedly lacking in the intelligence department. We should not act like animals who are much more instinctual in their behavior by enforcing the death penalty because the capacity to reason and think is developed in us enough that we should not have to.
Both defenders or offenders of animal rights may question why a human who killed an animal would not be sentenced to death. Obviously, the government does not place as much significance on an animal’s death as a human. If this is true, it would only affirm that animals are not treated as equally as humans and so that is why do not place as much importance on treating them ethically. On April 19th, 2009, twenty-one horses fell over and died before their involvement in a polo match in Florida, and investigators

announced that the most likely cause of their death was poisoning. Some of the horses died at the scene as veterinarians tried to help them while others died on the way to a vet clinic or at the vet clinic. Apparently, after examination, veterinarians concluded that the horses seemed to have died of heart failure due to toxins (If Polo Horses Were Poisoned, Perpetrator Deserves Death Penalty). If the poisoning was intentional, does the perpetrator deserve a death sentence? For people who think animals deserve as much right to be alive as a human does, it would only make sense that they would want someone who intentionally killed another animal to die, assuming that they support the death penalty. If a person is found and it turns out they intentionally killed the horses, they would only spend
If a person is found and it turns out they intentionally killed the horses, they would only spend time in person and pay for damages with money. If a supporter of the death penalty emphasizes how animals are being tortured for use of food yet humans are second thoughts, then why does the government not put someone to death if they killed an animal? It is also contradictory that rats and cockroaches are not brought into the picture and thought of as special enough not to annihilate, yet other living creatures are. The death penalty is not deserving of a person who killed an animal because animals are not equally significant, which is why animals do not have the same rights as humans.
Well my teacher approved of talking about animals so its ok

We are not discussing animals. Period.

It is an attempt to divert you from discussing the real issue. Don't let them go there.

Do not dignify any attempt to bring animals into the debate, with a response.

The death penalty is a legal justification to kill a human.

All murderers use some justification to kill a human.

First degree murder is when someone or group of people justify, and plan, and murder someone.

A capital murder trial, is when a group of people, justify, and plan, to kill someone.

The death penalty, sends a message to every citizen, non-citizen, and criminal or not, that in some cases, it is okay to kill someone, if you can justify it. This causes an increase, not a decrease in the murder rate.

The death penalty, is far too often, applied to innocent people. Whenever this happens, the murderer is free.

The classic example, is that Jesus Christ received the death penalty, and the murder Barabbas was set free.