Introduction
Crime rate have gone high in various parts of the world especially in the recent past. Consequently, various institutions have been striving to find ways through which crime rates can be controlled. More specifically, robberies and other kinds of armed crimes have increased with people getting killed on the process. The loss of property as well as the loss of lives that result from these crimes should not go unpunished. People need to get punishment for their evils so as to deter others from picking up the same characters.
However, the problem has been getting the right kind of punishment for each crime. Death penalty that has been allowed for various crimes has elicited a lot of debate. People have varying views as regards this punishment. While others support it, there are those who oppose it with totality. Nevertheless, the question that we should ask ourselves is whether this punishment can be just and fairly applied.
Arguments against the Penalty
Protests have been staged by various groups of people who oppose the death penalty. On the same note, many people have also added their voice on the opposition giving various reasons why the penalty should not be used. To begin with, it has been argued that the basic human right is the right to life.
Depriving any person of that right is basically going against human rights (Simon, 2001). Any person should be given the chance to enjoy the basic human rights. However, the death penalty takes away people’s lives. On the same note, the Bible as well as the Quran prohibits people from killing others. Therefore, it is immoral to execute the death penalty because that is tantamount to killing. A sin cannot be cleansed by another sin. The fact that criminals kill people does not justify the act of killing the criminals.
Moreover, those against death penalty have argued that the penalty literally deprives the affected their right to due process of the law. While other punishments give room for people to appeal against the sentence, death penalty closes that door.
The convicts are killed and if there is any new evidence or new technology that could lead to new ideologies about the case nothing can be done (Bienen, 2010). It is important to note that there is always a possibility of innocence and advancement in technology can be vital in revealing this. Nonetheless, if the death penalty is imposed, new evidence adds no weight.
Furthermore, statistics have shown that death penalty does not help in reduction of the rates of crime in society. Research shows that murders and other forms of violent crimes are high in states where death penalty is being practiced compared to states which have abolished death penalty. This shows the inability of the penalty to meet its intended objectives.
Consequently, there are other forms of punishment that can be used instead of the death penalty and be more effective. It should be noted that opposing the death penalty does not mean that people are oblivious of the magnitude of the crimes committed by this criminals. On the contrary, it is an advocacy for a different type of punishment that will be consistent with the provisions of our constitution (Levesque, 2006). Human life is very precious and needs to be protected at all costs.
While it is clear that the government and the judicial system aim at protecting human life that is terminated by criminals, we cannot achieve this by terminating other lives. Murder is not only immoral but also lack of respect for human life. On the same note, most victims of murder do not support the death sentence. Similarly, it beats logic for the state to say that killing is wrong while advocating for the death penalty at the same time.
Additionally, the cost involved with the death penalty is higher than that of holding somebody in jail for life. This is because the court process for murder trials takes long. On the same note, no person will agree with the first sentence when the sentence is death. Therefore, appeals in these cases are more frequent compared to other cases.
There are unavoidable delays from the moment the sentence is passed to the point when it is executed. To reduce this period of time and by extension the costs associated with murder trials, safety procedures have to be reduced (Bedau & Cassell, 2005). Unfortunately, this will lead to innocent people being convicted and put to death. Definitely, this is against the aims of the judicial systems which involve giving the defendants fair trials.
It is important to ask ourselves the main aim of punishing a criminal. Basically, people are punished for the wrongs that they do so that they can learn and not to repeat the same acts again. These people are supposed to correct their behavior and learn how to behave in society in order to live harmoniously with other members.
It goes without saying that death penalty does not achieve this. In this regard, life sentence without parole is worse than death penalty. While people who are sentenced to life without parole are forced to lead a hard confined life where they bitterly regret their acts, death penalty saves criminals.
There is no way that a person can learn that his or her acts were wrong when they are dead (Simon, 2001). In many instances, violent criminals know that they will die either during their crimes or thereafter and others have already resigned to die. Therefore, sentencing these people to death only helps them to meet their targets. Moreover, no criminal thinks of the consequences of any crime before committing it.
Notably, allowing the death sentence is equivalent to saying that an equal and proportional punishment should be imposed on any crime. Take for example a person who shoots and kills a single person intentionally. That is murder and if the idea of proportional punishment is upheld, then the person should be killed. Take another example of a person who kidnaps three young girls, sexually abuses them, tortures them and finally kills.
What is supposed to be the punishment of this person? If the principal of proportional justice is upheld then the person should be tortured before being killed. It is clear from the above examples that the possibility of justifying heinous forms of punishment is high with the death penalty in place (Levesque, 2006). Moreover, it should be noted that the judicial system is not there to serve as a form of revenge but rather to protect people. Killing a criminal does not bring back the victim but adds another dead person.
We all agree that killing an innocent person is atrocious and should not be allowed in any civil society. However, it should be known that those who are caught are just a small fraction of people. There are very many people who commit various horrible crimes and are still free in the society.
On the same note, being found guilty depends on the lawyer that one has. Rich people who are able to afford good lawyers usually get their way. Meanwhile the poor have no means of defending themselves and they are often the causalities of death penalty (Bienen, 2010). Many other people in the society also deserve to die but they are given lighter sentences, why should murders’ case be different?
Arguments in Favor of the Penalty
Nevertheless, there are people who are confident with the death penalty and always favor it. The proponents of death penalty argue that people should always be punished with what they deserve. Justice is better served if each crime is punished with the equal seriousness that it deserves. Murders should be given the harshest punishment that will deter others who might think of committing the crime.
If crimes are given lesser punishments than it would be appropriate the essence of punishment will be lost. Murderers take people’s lives and it should not be different when it comes to their lives. These criminals deprive their victims of their right to life which is a basic human right. Moreover, it should be noted that many murderers kill their victims in the most crude and inhuman ways causing them excruciating pain in many circumstances.
On the other hand, the death penalty is carried out in a manner that will cause the least pain to the convict which is just fair (Bedau & Cassell, 2005). Furthermore, killing in itself is wrong and there is no reason why a person who has killed another human being be allowed to enjoy living. To make matters worse is that these criminal only kill innocent people which is immoral and wrong by any standards.
On the same note, once criminals have been caught and taken before courts, they enjoy a lot of protection. Our judicial system leans towards the side of the criminals giving them a lot of lee ways to defend themselves and get away with their crimes. Seldom does the judicial system try to understand the pain that victims suffer either during or after the crime. Victims should be able to feel that justice has been served and that their suffering has been effectively addressed.
The main argument of those against death penalty is that there is a possibility of sending the wrong person to the hangman. However, the proponents of the penalty have a counter argument. According to the proponents, there has been great improvement in scientific technology in the recent years.
Consequently, there are many ways that can be used to determine with increased precision the perpetrator of a crime especially murder.DNA testing and other scientific techniques are up to 99% accurate which minimizes the chances that an innocent person will be condemned (Levesque, 2006). Additionally, there has never been any reported case of a wrong person who has been executed. With these improvements, there should not be any question as regards the implementation of the death penalty.
In the recent years, escapes from prisons have increased. Notably, most escapees are hardcore criminals who know that they have nothing to lose if they try escaping.
hen these criminals get back into the society, crime is their only way of earning a living. As a result, these people do not mind killing or committing other violent crimes. Similarly, prisons parole can give criminals a chance to get out of prison cells (Simon, 2001). In this regard, the only way to ensure that murderers do not get the opportunity of committing the same crimes again is through death penalty.
Similarly, it is irreverent to argue that death penalty has not reduced crime rates in our society. Any rational person fears death than anything else in this world. The idea that death is imminent sends waves of fear to every person. For any rational person who takes time to plan for murder, the death penalty will serve to deter them. Unfortunately, there are others who murder due to circumstances or due to psychological instability. For these people, no sentence can deter them not even the life without parole sentence.
It is important to note that other crimes in the society cannot be punished by any other sentence other than death. If a person is a serial murderer who enjoys killing and enjoys torturing his or her victims, there is no better way to punish this person other than the death penalty. Besides serving justice, the death penalty will help to save other many lives that would have been lost in the hands of the criminal (Bienen, 2010). In a nutshell, death penalty is very effective according to the proponents.
Personal Position
Death penalty was introduced with the sole purpose of deterring people from committing violent crimes. It depends on the defense team handling the case for one to be sentenced to death. People who depend on court-appointed lawyers always lose their cases. This is because state lawyers are inexperienced and lack the necessary skills to carry serious cases like murder.
On the same note, these lawyers are mostly poorly paid which demoralizes them. It has also been argued that, the death penalty is applied depending on the race of the victim and the criminal (Levesque, 2006). There is a higher probability that death penalty will be passed if the victim is white and the defendant is colored.
On the other hand, the death penalty has failed in its essence because many murders are being reported in regions where the death penalty is in place. Moreover, it is not everybody who fears death that they can stop committing crimes because somebody was killed.
Criminals get shot and killed day in day out while committing their crimes but other gang members go ahead and commit crimes oblivious of what happened to their friends. As a result, death penalty cannot be a solution. It should be reiterated also that the judicial system is not there to help in revenge missions (Bienen, 2010). Therefore, it cannot be that because somebody is accused of violent crimes, the only punishment is a death penalty.
Conclusion
Violent crimes are very heinous and should not be allowed to thrive in any society. They are not only brutal but also inhuman and cause a lot of negative effects especially to the victims. In this regard, perpetrators of these abhorrent acts should be punished in the most serious way. However, death penalty should not be an option. It simply deprives criminals the chance to repent. Killing is killing whether it is done as a punishment or not. Consequently, the death penalty can never be fair and justly applied.
References
Bedau, H. A. & Cassell, P. G. (2005). Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bienen, L. B. (2010). Murder and Its Consequences: Essays on Capital Punishment in America. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Levesque, R. J. (2006). The Psychology and Law of Criminal Justice Processes. New York: Nova Publishers.
Simon, T. W. (2001). Law and Philosophy: An Introduction with Readings. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.