• Read/ Textbook: Chapter 12
  • Lesson
  • Minimum of 5 scholarly sources (This includes the sources from the annotated bibliography. Additional sources may be included as appropriate.)

Return to the topic you chose in the week three assignment. Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic. The situation can be real or fictional.

  • Summarize the dilemma.
  • Define any needed key terms associated with the dilemma.
  • Analyze the conflicts or controversies involved in the dilemma.

Revise and rewrite based on any feedback you received in your previous draft (week three). Reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, etc.  State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties or conflicts between loyalty to self and loyalty to a community or nation.

What in your view is the most moral thing for that person to do in that dilemma? Why is that the most moral thing? Use moral values and logical reasoning to justify your answer

Next, apply the following:

  • Aristotle’s Golden Mean to the dilemma
  • Utilitarianism to the dilemma
  • Natural Law ethics to the dilemma

Which of those three theories works best ethically speaking? Why that one?

Why do the other two not work or not work as well?

 Is it the same as what you said is the most moral thing earlier? Why or why not?

Use the 5 articles from your annotated bibliography to support your answers. (Additional academic scholarly research from the past 5 years can be included as well.) 

Include a reference page at the end of your paper in APA format that includes your bibliography with the annotations removed and any other sources used in your final paper.

Writing Requirements (APA format)

  • Length: 4-5 pages (not including title page or references page)
  • 1-inch margins
  • Double spaced
  • 12-point Times New Roman font
  • Title page
  • References page (minimum of 5 scholarly sources)

Running Head: Death Penalty 1

Death Penalty 6

Death Penalty

Raissa Guewou

Chamberlain University

May 23, 2021

The death penalty, also sometimes denoted to as capital punishment, involves executing a lawbreaker by death sentencing conviction by a law court for a criminal offense. Capital crimes that could lead to the death penalty of an individual include treason, arson, rape, and murder. The death penalty is executed through various means, including electrocution, lethal injection, a gas chamber, and a firing squad. There has been moral debate surrounding the execution of individuals through the death penalty going around for a long time because some people argue that it is inhumane while others think that it is the proper method to mitigate the prevalence of crime in society.

Defenders of the death penalty argue that the community has a moral obligation to protect and ensure the welfare of its citizens. Therefore capital offenders threaten the safety and welfare of individuals in society, and the only way to ensure capital offenders do not commit offenses again is to put them to death. Additionally, those favoring the death penalty argue that society should only support the practices to balance good and evil and include the death penalty. The penalty is regarded as a benefit to the community because it deters violent crime (Garrett, 20170. The rationale behind this is that when individuals think about the death penalty as a consequence of committing an offense, they will be unwilling to participle in any criminal offenses. The proposers, therefore, argue that if the death penalty is not upheld, society puts the lives of innocent individuals at risk, especially those who have suffered under the hands of these criminals.

Those upholding the death sentence as morally right argue that to bring justice to a victim, it is required that the individual convicted of the heinous crime be sentenced to death. Justice is an element that ensures equal treatment for everyone; therefore, according to the opponents, it is unjust when a criminal inflicts more significant losses on a victim than they have to bear as a consequence. If criminals do not receive more significant losses than those they inflicted on their victims, society would favor criminals and allow them to get away with lesser consequences, therefore giving them a chance to re-offend.

On the other hand, those opposing the death penalty argue that although society is morally obligated to protect the lives of individuals, it is morally wrong to take individual’s lives. Since life is valuable for everyone, society is bound to reduce suffering and pain whenever possible. Therefore, justice should resolve to less severe consequences that will accomplish the same goal. Alternative include rehabilitation for capital crime offenders. They a

Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography



JUN 6, 2021

Ethics give a framework and direction on the things that are considered right as well as equip people with the ability to distinguish between what is right and wrong. Death penalty is the situation that brings up controversies and questions the aspect of ethics. It is also known as capital punishment where the perpetrator is sentenced to death as a conviction given by a court of law due to a criminal offence. Cases such as murder, rape among others can lead to death penalties. Death penalty is conducted in various ways such as lethal injection, electrocution, and the use of gas chambers among others.

 The issue of accepting or denouncing death penalties has been a moral debate for a long time as people view it to be inhuman while others perceive it to be proper method of terminating crime in the society. Those that defend death penalty argue that they have an obligation to maintain the morality in the community as well as to protect the welfare of everyone. Most capital offenders are a threat to safety.

The proposers of death penalty argue that the community should support the practices in order to balance evil and good. They strongly regard the death penalty as a benefit to the society as it deters all violent crimes. This is because no one wants to die. Most people fear death and the thought of death as a penalty and a consequence of committing a crime, most people will be unwilling to commit that offence.

 The people that side with death penalty strongly insist that without this penalty, the society puts the life of the innocent at risk and especially for those that may have happened to be victims of the consequences of criminals. Those that propose that a death sentence is morally right also standard ground that the sentence should be to an individual that has committed a profoundly serious crime. Justice therefore is served and ensures equal treatment for everyone. 

On the other hand, some people are against the death penalty as they consider it to be unjust. Life is significant and valuable for everyone. The society should reduce suffering and pain to the offenders and everyone at-large. Justice should result to less intense consequences that will help achieve the same goal as that of death penalty. Such alternatives include rehabilitation for this capital offenders. The death penalty should not be a requirement used to protect the public but instead they should be given life imprisonment. In addition, death penalty may also pose a risk especially to those that are convicted wrongly.

 Furthermore, death penalties affect the society as the value of life is lowered which clearly legitimizes the action of the murder. In addition, some of the