Throughout history, humans have applied various cruel techniques for punishing wrongdoers in their societies. In the ancient times, societies used various methods to kill persons accused of heresy, adultery, theft, robbery, murder and other forms of deviance.
However, with an increasing trend towards recognition of human rights and reduction of cruel, unfair and unreasonable pain, societies throughout the world have increasingly attempted to abolish death penalty, especially when dealing with individuals accused of various offenses such as adultery, heresy and robbery (Londono 109).
In fact, capital punishment has been on the decline in the past five decades. Nevertheless, death penalty in cases of such crimes as murder has remained applicable in various nations, despite the existing evidence that it is not only an unfair way of dealing with offenders, but also a violation of human rights, God’s law and human dignity.
The US is one of the few countries in the modern world that have resisted the move towards abolishing capital punishment through death penalty (Londono 21). In fact, death penalty is an old way of dealing with crime, which the US has borrowed despite the presence of the knowledge that death penalty is an archaic and barbaric technique. Thus, the US should abolish this penalty because it is not only medieval, but also crude, ineffective, costly and unjust.
Yet, the country has always been presenting itself as the most democratic country in the world. In addition, the US claims to posses one of the best laws and mechanism that respect human rights. Despite this, the US has been applying the law that legalizes killing of offenders as a way of punishment, yet the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment (Haines 12).
Evidently, the purpose of having a national and state criminal law is to deal with the problem of crime and ensure the society enjoys peace and harmony. The law aims at dealing with crime through rehabilitating offenders and incapacitating hardened offenders. Incarceration was initially designed to punish these individuals.
However, the modern American incarceration plays most of these functions other than punishment. In fact, prison life is an important and effective way of rehabilitation, incapacitation of hard criminals and alleviation of crime in the society. On the other hand, death penalty does not give these individuals a chance to change their behavior and adopt better relationships with other people (Lambert, Clarke and Lambert 57).
In addition, death penalty was important in eliminating hardened criminals who kept on escaping from prisons to cause harm in the society. However, with better prisons, equipment and methods, escaping from American prisons is no longer possible. This means that life imprisonment is more effective than death penalty because it incapacitates the hardened criminals while at the same time providing them with a chance to change their behavior (Lambert, Clarke and Lambert 117).
The philosophical consequence of death law does not prove that the act of killing offenders is something related with criminal justice. Rather, it has been shown that it is based on some other preferences that allow the society to sacrifice justice to achieve deterrence. It is evident that death penalty favors deterrence.
However, it is no better than other penalties. For instance, it has been shown that even in states and nations that apply death penalties, evidence of effectiveness in reducing the rate of crime is lacking. In fact, it has been shown that death penalty does not scare other criminals (Londono 125). This means that these states and nations face crime rates equal or almost similar to the rates of crime experienced in areas where this law does not apply.
Moreover, it is worth noting that death penalty is very expensive. In the US, life imprisonment of a convict costs the nation about $1 million (Londono 106). In addition, allowing these convicts to perform some activities that benefit their welfare in the prisons reduces this cost significantly (Haines 128). On the other hand, it clear that the process of executing the penalty is quite long.
For example, for an individual to face death penalty, he or she must go through a lengthy procedure to prove (beyond any reasonable doubt) that he or she is guilty of a capital crime. There must be enough proof that death is the only way to deal with the person (Londono 109). The case begins with trials and must exhaust all possible appeals before execution. This process also includes the lengthy time in which the individual is under police custody. In total, the process costs the nation about $5 million for a single offender (Haines 67).
Proofing that an individual has committed a capital crime worth death penalty does not necessarily mean that the individual is guilty. The entire process is prone to human, technical and other errors. This means that some individuals face death for crimes that do not amount to capital punishment through death (Haines 121).
In the US, the law discriminates murderers because it works under the rule of “an eye for an eye”. It is not logical to punish murderers with the same act they have done (Haines 142). For instance, for equality, offenders should be punished under the same way they deal with their victims.
For example, rapists should also be punished through rape. Similarly, drivers who accidentally kill people should also be made to stand in front of a speeding vehicle as a punishment. However, this is not the case in the US. It is clear that the archaic notion “an eye for an eye” only applies to murder cases while other offenders get lenient penalties. Evidently, this discrimination should be abolished constitutionally.
As indicated in the national Coat of Arms “In God We Trust”, the US is a nation that observes religion. The phrase is an indication that religion and trust in God is an important part of our culture. Therefore, American laws should also be in phase with religious laws and beliefs. No person has the right to take the life of another. It is the role of God to provide and take life. It is a sin to kill or condemn a person to death. Therefore, life imprisonment should be used instead of death penalty.
Considering these and other reasons, it is evident that death penalty is not an effective way of dealing with crime. Death penalty is barbaric and archaic. It violates the rights to life. It is also costly and ineffective in dealing with crime. In addition, it is against the religious laws, which are part of the America culture. Thus, the US should abolish the death penalty.
Works Cited
Haines, Herbert. Against Capital Punishment: Anti-Death Penalty Movement in America, 1972-1994. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Lambert, Eric, Alan Clarke and Janet Lambert. “Reasons for Supporting and Opposing Capital Punishment in the USA: A Preliminary Study”. Internet Journal of Criminology, 13.2 (2008): 123-131. Print
Londono, O. “A Retributive Critique of Racial Bias and Arbitrariness in Capital Punishment”. Journal of Social Philosophy, 44.2 (2010): 95–105. Print