The dawn of a new day welcomes new challenges and changes in our societies. These changes and challenges accompany diverse predicaments emanating from the speedy nature in which they advance.
At the end of it all, there come speedy problems, which are evolutionary and leave permanent side effects cumbersome to manage. In the current ever-changing world, there are many contemporary problems affecting individuals, groups, religious factions, and societies. Astonishingly, human beings cause these problems from what they do in their daily endeavors, either knowingly or unknowingly.
Ironically, these chores are unjust deeds done to other people. For example, while industries and other manufacturing bodies think it is just to unleash waste products into water streams, majority of the citizenry see this as injustice and danger towards their health. In the recent past, the world has witnessed massive destruction of the environment and pollution, which has seen global warming take place.
The effects of global warming are affecting underdeveloped countries more than developed countries that contribute greatly into this menace. Today, the lives of people living in developing countries are in jeopardy due to injustices from the developed countries. Developed counties continue to compete at the expense of developing countries and as a result, these hastened changes have become subtle enough to cause massive destruction.
Contemporary problems like pollution, information technology management (cybernetics), internal and international conflict, gay marriage and death penalties engender stress to persons, communities and countries through information overload and prejudice. As the world advances form one generation to another, there is general improvement and fruition of theories, civilizations, philosophies and initiatives, which lead to postmodernism.
However, these factors accompany diverse traits that cause injustice to other people, organizations or societies. Sometimes, these evolutions can lead into disintegration and wearing down of social value schemes hence, making it hard for people to chose between just and unjust. For a long time now, this has been the predicament surrounding contemporary problems. Contemporary problems cause more harm than good to individuals, groups or societies. (Vollum, 2008, pp. 1-9).
Contemporary problems make people choose wrong goals and as a result, lose moral values expected in any society. Under contemporary problems, the ethical nature of persons, organizations and societies is under question. This paper will examine death penalty as an example of contemporary problem affecting societies. While majority dislike the idea of executing criminals, some favor it. Denying them the right to live not only becomes unconstitutional but also, the execution becomes injustice to them.
Likewise, if societies allow criminals to continue with their criminal activities, soon the society will loose many people, which is also unfair. Thus, depending on how one views it, death penalty or capital punishment, contemporary problem, can either be injustice and justice. Since the dawn of civilization, it has actually come to the realization of many that, the just capital punishment of criminals is injustice in entirety. It is inhuman to large extent. (Henderson, 209, pp. 2-8).
Perhaps the biggest question to ask is whether by executing a criminal is far different from committing the same crime committed by the offender. The sanguinary punishments committed by governments all over the world are no different from the crimes committed by offenders. Take for example capital punishment in United Kingdom. The English government punishes criminals through hanging and quartering. In France, the story of capital punishment is the same like in United Sates, though less barbarous.
Capital punishment has become one of the best modes of revenge and destruction tenderness mechanism aimed at the populace who are against government authorities. Everywhere, governments all over the world apply capital punishment as an administration mechanism aimed at silencing individuals and societies. Instead of applying the rule of law dictated by democracy, governments have chosen to operate under precedents.
This operation is sure injustice no matter how violent the criminal might have acted. By executing criminals, the government is portraying itself retaliatory and doing the same offense but this time round, with terror. Ancient societies practiced capital punishment (death penalty) in order to grant justice to those wronged. During that time, many people viewed capital punishment as a form of justice. (Burt, 1993, pp. 22-25).
Due to evolutional change in people’s ideologies, ideas and perceptions, some countries have since abolished capital punishment and instead, imprison criminals for life. Under special circumstances, do government authorities execute criminals just to act as an example to the remaining population? However, most populated countries like United States, Indonesia and China still allow capital punishment and there is no likelihood of abolishing it even in the future.
Capital punishment or death penalty is a hot debate based on cultural regionalism, religious doctrines and political ideologies. There are two sides of debate when it comes to death penalty. The truth of the matter is that, capital punishment is injustice. The world has witnessed governments execute innocent people in the name of capital punishment.
The act meant to foster justice and bring the offenders before the law has turned its back on justice instead. Capital punishment is a motive aimed saving money that governments would use to imprison offenders for life. In this way, the system is retaliatory and discriminatory. Astonishingly, the system shows favoritism against the minority groups and the poor members. Additionally, it is clear capital punishments deny criminals the right to live. (Bill, 2004, pp. 190-193).
On the other hand, the opponents of death penalty justify their stance citing retribution to the offence committed. Thus, to them, executing criminals rewards them with the same price they had committed and that life imprisonment is not enough. These proponents believe that, death penalty is an equal justice to the wronged and that it is the best highway to assert the right to life through grueling criminals who take the law into their hand in the strictest comportment.
Some executions marred by errors constitute injustice in totality. From Asia to America, Africa to South America, the death penalty claim innocent lives everyday. Both opponents and proponents of death penalty can argue for and against, but it is poignant to note how this system denies people their human rights. The cold-blooded and premeditated killing nature committed in the name of justice appears seditious when mentioning the right to life.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights grants all persons the right to live. According to Amnesty International, any form of execution by the state regardless of the committee offense, is injustice and it is wrong for an individual, society or government to claim the life of human beings. (Amnesty International, 2007, Para. 1-5).
Civilization has led the world into an utterance that, capital punishment is no longer justice but injustice. With the ever-evolving human ideas and ideologies, it is apparent to note how nature compels governments to abolish the unjustifiable system. As expected, research shows that, those mandated by the state to carry out executions end up brutalized by feelings of murder.
Moreover, there is no indication whatsoever that, by executing criminals crime rates will do down and political violence cease. In some countries, the state use death penalty disproportionately as a contrivance of political despotism. At times and in the recent past, some countries have applied death penalties to the poor, racial and colored factions in order to gain something. The result is genocide, which claims many lives in the name retaliation.
There is no absolute justice realized by these governments, which impose death penalty capriciously and instead, what they portray is inevitable injustice through these irretrievable castigation, whose motive is to deprive off the fundamental human rights. (Amnesty International, 2007, Para. 6-10).
Many countries that have abolished capital punishment cite the sanctity of human life and dignity as the reason behind their motives. Nonetheless, there are governments who sought to death penalty in order to solve their social and political quandaries.
It is worrying to say, many citizens from these countries believe in death penalty as a solution to political and social unrest even when it is clear that, capital punishment is no more less than brutalization. Many people believe that, when the government is executing criminals, it is acting on their part as a way of protection. However, many of them come to realize late the brutal nature of this system when they fall victims.
What they fail to understand is that, death penalty encompasses the whole population and at one point, anybody can be a victim. At this particular time, it would not be justice like anticipated before but instead, violation of the basic human rights. The question remains as to whether the state has the audacity to perform such executions and whether it is veracious justice. Terror and state brutality dominated the Second World War, which dealt blow to fundamental human rights.
However, these brutal killings had to end in 1984 in the UN General Assembly through the creation and adoption of a policy, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which compels all governments to respect the right to live. Under this policy, fundamental human rights curtail state participations especially those that appear to infringe human rights. (Roger, 2002, pp. 228-232).
It is categorical especially in the manner under which the Universal Declaration protects lives. It goes further to declare that, no one has the mandate to torture, persecute or treat other persons inhumanly.
Thus, capital punishment being a premeditated activity goes against this Universal Declaration and eventually, violation of the elemental human rights. Governments can argue that, death penalty sometimes helps in unlocking deadlocks for example, international or civil strife. In order to safe lives perishing from strife, the government may impose death penalty in order to contain situations.
However, one may wonder on the lives terminated using lethal force. Capital punishment is not a substitute of self-defense as there are other less harsh modalities of dealing with criminals. There is no substantive evidence that can cover up torture, cruel beatings and inhumane actions to others in the name of creating peace and tranquility. (Amnesty International, 2007, Para. 15-18).
Nevertheless, sometimes it is not fair to dispute the whole system and render it unworthy. There are situations that call for the application of the system. For example, application of death penalty can follow only after flaxen judicial process. A fair judicial process ensures even criminals stand equal with the rest before the law.
Nonetheless, sentencing criminals to death penalty without a just judicial process mars the integrity of the process and the system itself. Injustice prevails if the state fails its mandate to protect the lives of its citizenry. Sometimes the court might err in its ruling, which implies, if criminals faced death penalty, it might be too late to revert wrong accusations. Furthermore, further hearing when the victim is still alive will see the judicial system make sensible judgments free from errors.
Thus, capital punishment is a stumbling block of human life as enshrined in constitutions all over the world. According to Amnesty International statistics, there has been a decline in the number of death penalty cases a around the world. According to the report released in 2006, 91 percent of executions occurred in one country from Africa (Sudan), Four from Asia (Pakistan, China, Iraq and Iran) and United States of America with Europe reporting very minimal cases since 2003. (Amnesty International, 2007, Para. 19-21).
The world has witnessed cases where people touted to be criminals disappear, undergo torture and sometimes meet death through extrajudicial killings.
Such executions meant to silence people, have proved to be disturbing in the sense that, people touted to be criminals do not have time to express and prove their innocence. Annoyingly, there is no single administration that can overtly claim to be involved in human rights contravention. Incontrovertibly, capital punishment can never meet social needs no matte how governments justify it.
The fact that people meet death through arbitrary executions is not only pure injustice, but also compels nations towards abolishing it. Criminals ought to be given a second chance. For example, if the state imprisons criminals for life or sentence criminals to death, it can be hard to gauge whether, this person would have committed another crime had the state set the criminal free. In the past, political repressions have only increased crimes instead. (Schabas, 2002, pp. 8-27).
Capital punishment is actually an erroneous idea that fabricates stringent actions against purported crimes. There is no evidence and never can it be that, capital punishment averts crime. In fact, countries that apply death penalty to criminals have the highest number of crime rates increasing each day.
It would be injustice if people touted to be criminals face death penalty without fair hearing and justification. The rule of law provides a platform under which justice prevails. Imagine of a scenario where the state or community opt to rape a rapist, burn houses belonging to an arsonist or execute the murderer.
The whole process will be nothing other than a series of crimes, which not only add up to injustice, but also increase in crime cases. In other words, torture cannot express disapproval of torture. Our societies need to embark on new modalities of dealing with injustices lest they continue to be injustices forever. (Naomi & Derrel, 2000, Para. 1-5).
In conclusion, past state executions through death penalty, have proved discriminatory in that, death penalty occurs within ethnic, political and social ground. The government decides who to eliminate and who to spare.
Disproportionately, it is the underprivileged, the marginalized communities and political opponents who suffer most. This makes the whole system to be discriminatory hence; calling for its abolishment. It will be of great importance not only to criminals, but also the whole society to experience certain amount of fair hearing judicial processes, which will determine the penalty required.
Elimination of criminals through death penalties is repression and abuse of human rights. By executing criminals, death penalty amounts to terror and injustice. It is now up to societies to choose what they want. If societies opt to have death penalty, terror will increase hence, injustice. On the other hand, if societies abolish death penalty, we shall have a world free of executions; the one that respects fundamental human rights.
Reference List
Amnesty International. (2007). The Death Penalty V. Human Rights: Why Abolish the Death Penalty? Retrieved from <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ACT51/002/2007/en/>
Bill, K. (2004).The Death Penalty on Trial: Crisis in American Justice. New York: Public Affairs.
Burt, M. (1993). Effective Capital Representation in the 90s, CACJ Forum, 20(2), 22-25.
Henderson, H. (2006). Capital Punishment. New York: Facts on File.
Naomi, W & Derrel, M. (2000). We should be devoted to ending the injustice of the death penalty, not ending more lives. Retrieved from <https://deathpenalty.org/>
Roger, H. (2002). The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective. (3rd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Schabas, William (2002). The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law. Cambridge University Press.
Vollum, S. (2008). Last words and the death penalty: voices of the condemned and their victims. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishers.