Name:
Lecturer:
Course:
Date:
Death Penalty
Introduction
Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty or execution, is a death sentence warranted upon an individual by a given state or competent authority as a punishment for a given crime (Phillips, 4). Crimes that lead to an issue of the capital punishment are referred to as capital offences or capital crimes. This mode of passing judgment has been utilized by numerous societies. Currently, ninety-six states have moved to abolish it in their regions while, a remaining fifty-eight countries, still enforce the practice. Most notably, these countries have not enforced this practice in about ten years, and only implement it in exceptional scenarios such as times of war (Phillips,13). Capital punishment is an issue of active controversy predominant in various states and countries, varying within arguments on cultural issues or ideologies in politics. Regardless of the fact that numerous nations have abolished the death penalty, sixty percent of the world’s introduction still witness executions taking place, most notably Indonesia, United States of America, as well as China. Each of these four nations surprisingly solicited against moves by the General assembly to abolish the death penalty. In reality, capital punishment is ultimately the denial of an individual’s right to live (Phillips, 18). It is always a premeditated action involving the cold-blooded killing of a person. There can never possibly be any justification for cruel treatment or torture. It is my stand that the death penalty should be completely abolished from the face of the earth.
Argument
Execution of criminals as well opponents in politics has been greatly used in numerous societies, as a means of suppressing political dissent as well as punishing crime. Societies that practice capital punishment mainly reserve it for actions such as espionage, treason and murder. Certain states practice it in the cases of rape, sodomy, incest and even adultery as do even apostasy in Islamic nations (renunciation of the religion in the state). China passes the capital punishment for cases involving human trafficking, as well as serious corruption cases.
The practice of capital punishment extends back to ancient history when society was filled with primitive practices. It is an astonishing fact that as far as the world has come that this practice is still in force. Countries or states that practice this abhorrent activity argue that it constitutes deterrence thus preventing future indulgence in crime (Gobert, 8). Society has and will always utilize punishment as a form of discouraging would be criminals from engaging in unlawful actions. Society argues that since it is best interested in preventing serious crimes, it is therefore justified to use the highest means of achieving this goal, which is the use of capital punishment. If serious offenders are executed through the death sentence, potential criminals will therefore have a second thought before they engage in any serious crime for fear of losing their own lives (Gobert, 9).
Nevertheless, judging from their argument, the capital punishment does not prove any deterrence in future murders. Societies that believe deterrence is a justification for executing serious criminals end up bearing the burden of proving its viability in deterring future crimes. An overwhelming conclusion from significant research on deterrence is that the capital punishment, at best, does not act any more deterrent as compared to a life long sentence in prison (Gobert, 22). In fact, capital punishment constitutes an opposite effect, therefore, brutalizing society thus increasing the probability of more serious crimes such as murder. Research shows that some states in the United States, which do not use capital punishment, register lower murder cases as compared to those that do. In any case, capital punishment is not deterrent since most criminals who engage in serious crimes either do not carefully weigh the propensities of life in prison and the death penalty, or do not expect to be apprehended in any case. Once dangerous criminals are in prison in life long sentences, will often tend to settle into a practice routine, therefore, being of less harm to other inmates. In addition, most societies have further incorporated sentences without the possibility of any parole. Therefore, there can be an assurance on society’s safety as well as a life saved (Galliher, 14).
Society further argues in its defense on capital punishment a just society should call for capital punishment especially in the case of murder as a form of retribution. When someone takes life, it argues that balance on justice has been disturbed and needs to be restored, failure to which, society will succumb in an ideology of violence. Only when you take the life of the murderer will the balance be restored, allowing society to display convincingly that taking life is intolerable warranting an equal punishment (Galliher, 28). Retribution further bases its argument on values in religion, maintaining its ideology of taking an eye for an eye thus justifying taking a life as compensation for another life. From individuals who commit heinous and cruel crimes, those whose remedy is capital punishment, the criminals require the worst punishment in the society’s law system. They argue that granting any lesser form of punishment will contradict society’s value of safeguarding other lives.
In my opinion, capital punishment is in no case a just remedy for responding to a murder case. From my understanding, retribution is in accord with revenge and both ideologies are the same. It is a natural instinct for human behavior to crave immediately for retaliation when wronged, but society, on the other hand, should stand for a more measured mature response. Impulse on emotion does not serve as sufficient justification for employing a system that incorporates the death penalty (Galliher, 24). Society’s laws on should impart knowledge on higher principles as well as displaying utmost respect for human life, be it that of a murderer. It is in my view that when we base judgment on revenge motives, which result in another murder, the consequence ends up extending the violence chain. Allowing executions will therefore sanction murder as a form of pay back. Society’s ideologies are very primitive in my opinion; and end up contradicting themselves. Why then does society fail to torture those convicted of torturing or even sanction rapes for rapists? This especially sheds light onto the United States, which even though sanctions minimal death penalties, which are merely cases of defendants who lack adequate resources to defend themselves, rather than serious offenders (Galliher, 31).
Moreover, in my support to abolish capital punishment, employing this practice runs the risk of passing this judgment to innocent people, who are more often than not mistaken identities. Once a convict has been executed, there is no way of making any amends if a mistake is recognized later on. Since the year 1973, a considerable number of eighty-eight people up to now have been released from conviction subsequent to the emergence of evidence of their innocence (Gobert, 45). In the same time span, six hundred and fifty people have been sentenced to capital punishment. Therefore, one in every seven people executed, is innocent. Most recently, students studying journalism in the Illinois state were mandated to investigate a case concerning a man who was sentenced to capital punishment, subsequent to unsuccessful appeal attempts. These students managed to find out that the witness had given false testimony. They eventually managed to identify the true criminal in the case, who accepted to confess his crime on tape. The innocent convict was quite lucky and was immediately released. A point to note is that his life was not spared due to a reliable justice system, but because of the selfless endeavors of concerned individuals.
Our current society is taking numerous risks that can eventually lead the loss of innocent lives. Construction workers engage in activities statistically aware that some of them are at the risk of perishing; we therefore take great precaution in efforts aimed at minimizing unwarranted fatalities. Nevertheless, unwarranted executions can be prevented. When we implement sentencing a criminal to a life sentence without parole, society’s needs for punishment are met as well avoiding the risk of a wrongful irrevocable sentence. Moreover, when the death penalty is practiced, it currently does not point out to the criminals who ‘deserve it’. Rather, it falls on an arbitrary group of individuals on irrational and incompetent factors such as viability of the defense counsel, the race of the victim or criminal, as well as the county or state in which the offense was committed (Galliher, 36).
Conclusion
Capital punishment is in nature an unfair practice that in any manner cannot serve as a remedy for any kind of wrong or crime. It is a cold-blooded practice with a nature of predetermination; the convicted is informed in advance of his day of death. You can just imagine the hell-like situation the convict and their family will be going through prior to the execution day. It greatly violates human right to life as prescribed by the universal declaration on human rights. With all due reason and measure of maturity, I take a stand to solicit for the complete abolition of capital punishment.
Works cited
Sundby, Scott. “The Capital Jury and Empathy: The Problem of Worthy and Unworthy Victims.” Cornell Law Review. 88.2 (2003). Print.
Phillips, Fred. The Death Penalty and Human Rights. Kingston, Jamaica: Caribbean Law Pub. Co, 2009. Print.
Gobert, J. “The Us Decision to Abolish the Death Penalty.” Childright. (2005): 14-15. Print.
Galliher, John F. America Without the Death Penalty: States Leading the Way. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2002. Print.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]