Death Penalty
Introduction
The death penalty can be described as when the government takes a person’s
life as a punishment for wrong doing (Kaye 6). The death penalty is also
referred to as capital punishment or execution. Offences that can attract the
death penalty are referred to as Capital Crimes. Currently, the death penalty
has become a highly controversial and widely debated issue which has raised
different opinions among different people and nations. Although many countries
have abolished the practice, it is estimated that more than 60% of the world population
still lives in areas where the death penalty is administered (Priya 1). The United States, China,
India, Iran, Somalia
and Indonesia
are some of the countries that lead in administration of the death penalty as a
form of rendering justice in the society (Priya 1).
Death Penalty Pros
There are several reasons as to why the death sentence as a means of
administering justice is considered as an appropriate practice. To begin with, in
the past, almost all human societies applied the death penalty as the most
appropriate way of punishing people who committed serious crimes such as murder
and rape and it really worked for them. Today, due to the fact that most
justice systems have become reluctant and less functional, there is high rate
of crime in the society. Thousands and thousands of people die every year as a result
of increased rate of crime in the society. This situation, therefore, might
call for reinstatement of the death sentence as a form of punishment in the
society (Braswel, McCarthy and McCarthy 202).
In cases of murder, death penalty ensures that it gives a closure to
the sufferings undergone by the victim’s family members and friends. Although
it normally takes years to recover from loosing a loved one, executing the
offender brings some kind of relieve to the victim’s relatives and hastens the
process of forgetting. Continued imprisonment of the offender may not be
received by the victim’s relatives well. They might feel being tortured by the
offender’s continued presence (Kaye 8).
On
the other hand, the death penalty also saves the family members and friends of
the offenders from long time suffering. Priya notes that this suffering can be
in form of time and resources spent in appealing and in other legal processes (3).
There is a lot of pain especially if one is innocently convicted. Therefore, if
the offender is eventually executed, it means that the suffering and pain undergone
by both his and her family members and friends is brought to a permanent
closure.
It is assumed that giving murderers a parole or allowing them to
escape will give them another chance of killing. On the other hand, continued
imprisonment cannot prevent murderers from killing, even in prison. Therefore,
in such a case, it suggested that it is better to prevent the crime from
reoccurring by allowing the death penalty to take its full course. That may be the
biggest reason for calls to reinstate the death penalty in the society
(Braswel, McCarthy and McCarthy 202).
According to Hugo, the death
sentence is considered as the most effective form of crime deterrent in the
society (79). Without an effective way of preventing crime in the society, the
society will become unsafe as people will continue committing crimes knowing
that there is no form of punishment that can scare them away from committing crimes.
Therefore, the death penalty works effectively by ensuring that violent
criminals are eliminated from the society. At the same time, those who intend
to perform related crimes will be forced to uphold justice.
The death sentence is seen as the
most effective method of rendering justice for some specific crimes which are
considered as being serious. Many people do argue that it is not wrong to
execute people who brutally murder others. According to Kaye, other crimes
considered as being serious in the society include treason, espionage,
aggravated kidnapping, drug trafficking and aircraft hijacking (Kaye 8).
Therefore, the death sentence might be seen as the best form of punishment that
is equal in measure with such crimes.
Other people like Priya do argue
that the death penalty helps to reduce overpopulation and congestion in prisons
(4). Most prisons in the world have been associated with the problem of having
too many prisoners but less accommodation space and resources. This means that
every extra prisoner added requires food, clothing, and space and guard time.
Therefore, the death penalty can be seen as the best form of enhancing
decongestion in prisons.
With the advancements in technology
in the world today, the uncertainty that an innocent offender will be executed
has reduced (Hugo 81). In the past, most arguments against death penalty centered
on the fact that people were wrongly convicted as a result of mistaken
identity. Today, the DNA tests have helped in prosecuting and executing the
right criminals. Additionally, other modern ways of crime identification, such
as forensic investigations, have helped to ensure that death penalty is given
to the right people.
Braswel and his colleagues argue
that although majorities of the people are normally guilty of the crimes they are
accused for, nobody is ready to admit that he or she is guilty. The presence of
the death penalty in the society can serve to scare such people so that they
can tell the truth and plead guilty. Everybody in the society fears death and
if threatened that he or she will be put to death, a potential offender will
co-operate with the judges and this will help in enhancing justice in the
society (Braswel, McCarthy and McCarthy 204).
It has also been argued that it may be less costly to punish
somebody using death penalty than continued stay in prison (Hugo 81). This saves
the resources of the tax-payer which is invested in administration of justice.
A death sentence ensures that a lot of money is not used in prolonged appeals
and other less fruitful legal processes. On the other hand, continued stay in
prison calls for more resources that can facilitate the lives of the inmates.
World religions have varying opinions concerning the death penalty.
Although a good number of them oppose the practice, there are some which
justify it. Some sections of Buddhism say that the death penalty is allowed by
their religious teachings. Hinduism also partially supports the practice of
capital punishment. It is a majority view among the Muslims that the Quran
allows capital punishment. Judaism also approves the death penalty (Priya 5).
Death Penalty Cons
The death penalty is seen as barbaric and a violation of the
provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some organizations
such as Amnesty International have openly criticized this form of punishing
offenders as they view the death penalty as a denial for human rights. It is
seen as a cruel and inhumane form of punishment rendered in the name of
justice. The methods used in executing offenders are normally considered
inhumane. Hanging, lethal injection, electrocuting and using firing squad are
all practices not considered fit for human torture (Priya 6).
Kaye observes that death penalty may have no rehabilitative effect
in preventing further crimes in the society (14). Some criminals prefer
execution than life imprisonment. People serving long sentences may see life
imprisonment as being an endless pain that continues for many decades.
Therefore, such people may welcome the death penalty, where a lot of suffering
is put over instantly. For instance, most terror groups in the world today fear
no death. Therefore, the death penalty may have no impact on preventing such
people from committing and recommitting the crime.
Hugo argues that death penalty might lead to cases where innocent
people wrongly get convicted and subsequently executed (82). Well documented
evidences have shown that some innocent people have normally been put to death
as offenders. This is common in cases where poor defendants are likely to get
less legal attention, especially if their cases are handled by less qualified
judges who are unable to render justice in a competent manner.
Braswel and his colleagues observe that some people who commit
offences are born with mental defects that may be responsible for their
unacceptable behaviors and actions. To such people, there may be no
rehabilitation and positive reinforcement that can change them. Therefore, it
is morally wrong and unconstitutional for such people to be given death
sentences, yet it is bad luck that they were born with a mental problem.
Therefore, the judges need to be convinced that the offender they are
convicting is not mentally ill (Braswel, McCarthy and McCarthy 209).
A death penalty might be seen by the societal members as a form of
revenge for the offences committed by the offender (Priya 6). This will
therefore create the mentality of “eye for an eye” in the society. This
mentality never solves anything. It only enhances continued violence in the
society. Therefore, it should be made known that revenging and avenging against
the enemy only worsens matters than solving them and healing the situation.
In some cases, the death penalty has been discriminatively applied
to affect the racial minorities and the poor. For instance, although African
Americans make up only 13% of the population of the United States, more than 50% of the
offenders who are on the verge of being executed are black Americans (Kaye 13).
According to the United
States’ Department of Justice, between the
year 2001 and 2006, 48% of federal cases sought death penalties against African
Americans (Kaye 13). On the other hand, most of the offenders who have been
convicted are those who do not have enough money to higher expensive lawyers
and defend themselves exclusively (Kaye 13).
In cases where the convicted are executed as a result of committing
murder, a death penalty may send out a wrong message to the members of the
society (Kaye 15). Many people will ask themselves endless questions as to why
the offenders are killed yet killing is morally wrong. That the people who say
that killing is wrong are themselves involved in killing. This will justify
killing amongst the societal members and they may end up taking matters into
their hands by killing anybody suspected as a criminal.
It has been argued that the financial costs associated with giving
somebody a death penalty are 3-4 times higher than keeping the person under
life imprisonment (Priya 7). The endless appeals involved and the additional
legal processes called for all end up wasting the tax-payer’s money. Judges,
court clerks, prosecutors and other court officials all need to be facilitated
through the taxpayer’s money. Yet cases related to death penalties normally
take many years before they end. This means that a lot of money will really be
spent.
As Hugo observes, cases related to death penalties normally cause
congestions in courts (83). The court systems and processes take a lot of time
before rendering a death sentence. Judges, attorneys and other court officials
spend a lot of time on the endless appeals, hearings, witnessing, motions and
other legal processes. This leads to congestion of courtrooms and other court
facilities and yet at the end of the day, many matters remain unresolved.
When it comes to rendering death penalties, some judges are normally
reluctant in convicting such offenders. This in fact requires a stone-heart and
a brave one. A judge may be against the death penalty but circumstances may
force him or her to act against his or her consciousness. On the other hand,
some prosecutors might find it necessary to go in for lesser charges than drive
the judges towards rendering a death penalty. At the end of the day, under such
circumstances, there is no justice observed (Braswel, McCarthy and McCarthy 212).
The family and friends of the executed person normally suffer
emotionally from seeing their loved ones being killed in cold blood by the
state. As Kaye notes, the appealing processes are normally weary and resource
consuming (17). In some instances, the death penalty may trigger sympathy
towards the crime perpetrators. Although criminals are despised by the society,
the death penalty normally shifts sympathy to the criminals. Even if the
criminals were merciless murderers, sometimes the society normally sympathizes
with them.
The main intent of punishing an offender is to help him or her get
transformed so that he or she can fit in the community on re-entry. Bad luck,
punishing an offender by death penalty means that one is gone forever and there
is no way he or she is going to come back. There is no amount of anger and
revenge that can cure the emptiness of loosing loved ones. Even though a
criminal, the offender will forever remain being treasured by family members
and friends (Hugo 84).
Death penalty might tarnish the images of the countries which punish
offenders through execution. Such countries may be seen by others as being
violent and vengeful (Priya 8). Additionally, the death penalty tarnishes the
reputation of the physicians who get hired to enhance the executions. It
violates their oath of ensuring protection to people’s lives. On the other
hand, members of the public come to lose trust in them (Priya 8).
From the religious point of view, although some religions advocate
for the death penalty, a good number of them oppose it. Most religions hold
human life as being sacred and that no human being is authorized to terminate
the life of a fellow human being. Some sections of Buddhism do not allow the
practice. Hinduism also opposes the practice of capital punishment, although
partially. Most Christians completely condemn the practice due to the fact that
killing is forbidden in the Christian context (Kaye 22).
Conclusion
Death penalty remains one of the highly controversial and the most
widely debated issue in the Criminal Justice System and in the entire human
society today. It has brought about
arguments for and arguments against it. However, since the reasons in support against
the death penalty seem to outweigh the reasons in support for the practice, it
is important that the death penalty is abolished. The practice is seen as
inhumane and a form of vengeance that negates the human right to life. The
death penalty can be replaced by other more reasonable means of administering
justice, such as, life imprisonment and imposition of heavy fines.
Works Cited:
Braswel, Michael; McCarthy, Belinda and McCarthy,
Bernard. Justice, Crime, and Ethics. Amsterdam; Boston:
Elsevier, 2012.
Hugo Adam. The
Death Penalty in America.
New York
[u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press, 1982.
Kaye, Stearman. The
Death Penalty. New York:
Rosen Pub. Group's Rosen Central, 2007.
Priya, Johnson.
Death Penalty Pros and Cons. New
York: Buzzle.com, 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment