Introduction
There is an extended number of complicated and controversial social issues that will probably never be solved completely. The question of the necessity and morality of capital punishment is among such topics. It is well-known that many countries and American states introduced, abolished, and reintroduced the death penalty because each time, there were convincing arguments for and against this method of punishing criminals and antisocial individuals (Austin, 2020). Indeed, precisely these strong arguments make it impossible for people to come to a single attitude towards capital punishment.
Capital Punishment as a Controversial Social Issue
Two terrible legal cases may support this discussion. First of all, Ted Bundy, who is probably one of the most notoriously known serial killers, “was finally sentenced to death and died in the electric chair on January 24, 1989” (Crime Museum, n.d., para. 5). Thus, he is an example of using the death penalty for society to achieve retribution, remedy, and deterrence – the key arguments for capital punishment. At the same time, the case of Guy Paul Morin illustrates that, while a wrongful conviction can be canceled, a wrongful death sentence cannot be changed – an erroneously executed person cannot be brought back to life (Austin, 2020). It took Guy Paul Morin about ten years to prove his innocence and ensure everyone that he was not the person who murdered a young girl (Harland-Logan, n.d.). However, if capital punishment had been in play in Canada at the time Morin was convicted, a much more terrible mistake could have happened.
Based on the facts and legal cases mentioned above, it is possible to say that there are instances beyond a shadow of a doubt that capital punishment should be implemented. Referring to Ted Bundy, who kidnapped, raped, and murdered at least twenty women; he “exhibited signs of the sadistic serial” and recalled being quite antisocial (Crime Museum, n.d., para. 1). According to Narayan (n.d.), “the special reason must relate, not to the crime but to the criminal. The crime may be shocking and yet the criminal may not deserve the Death Penalty” (p. 77). Overall, one may define that the death penalty is justified if: the criminal is guilty of several shocking crimes; their presence is dangerous for society; they have confessed to their crimes; the evidence is strong and credible; enough time has passed, and no additional proves of the person’s innocence are found.
At the same time, one cannot ignore the case of Guy Paul Morin – while a major part of his life was destroyed by the criminal process, at least he was not sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit. However, if capital punishment was legal in Canada during the 1990s, nothing would undo Moran’s conviction. Consequently, the death penalty should be the last instance and be used primarily to secure the well-being of people.
Conclusion
To conclude, one may say that the complexity and controversy of the discussed social issue will probably never allow people to have a common opinion regarding it. Indeed, while one may feel that applying the “eye for an eye” rule is essential even in the modern world, it is also vital to remember that the death penalty leaves no room for error. Some examples, like Ted Bundy’s case, show that capital punishment should not be abolished completely as it actually can rid society of trouble and let innocent people worry less about escapees. At the same time, the case of Guy Paul Morin highlights that even the police and the jury can make mistakes and find an innocent person guilty. Consequently, the death penalty can only be used when there is no doubt about the prisoner’s guilt and many different pieces of evidence proving their involvement.
References
Austin, M. W. (2020). What’s wrong with the death penalty? Psychology Today. Web.
Crime Museum. (n.d.). Ted Bundy.
Harland-Logan, S. (n.d.). Guy Paul Morin. Innocence Canada.
Narayan, A. (n.d.). Capital punishment: A comparative study [PDF document].