Serious criminals have usually imposed a death sentence. This type of punishment continues to exist, even nowadays. However, it seems completely irrelevant in a modern democratic and humanistic society.
Let us consider issues arguing against corporal punishment. First, it violates the inherited right to life that is a fundamental principle of all other human rights, which no one can take away under any circumstances. Certainly, plenty of crimes force to shudder from cruelty with which they were committed. Nevertheless, this cruel and unusual punishment might be substituted by more suitable ones. Second, no one can correct a fault of justice if the person is dead.
The irreversibility of death warrant created by mistake cannot be completely excluded in any legal system. Even the most advanced and powerful system of justice with numerous assurances cannot provide the full accuracy of the facts in all cases. In any case, there is a serious risk that a person will be executed for a crime he or she did not commit. It is confirmed by too many examples when people were justified after conviction, often due to DNA analysis.
Third, as a part of the death penalty, there is one fundamental question. What is more valuable: any property, money, or human life? It is difficult to disagree with the fact that human life is the most precious item. Therefore, the death penalty should be firmly rejected. Moreover, the use of corporal punishment often leads to violations of the right to equality and non-discrimination. Court often disproportionate and does not base its decision on any rational criteria during decision-making. In this case, the more disadvantaged people are poor people and minorities. This aspect might be referred to due process rights.
Regarding retribution or revenge, the death penalty generates cruelty in society. A state that supports such punishment, in fact, declares that killing is an acceptable way to solve problems. Society perceives it as an act of justice and, therefore, has a distorted notion of solving the problems of crime. As a result, citizens are beginning to think that crime issues can be resolved by killing.
It should also be noted that with the accomplishment of corporal punishment, justice cannot achieve the objectives of punishment such as the reconstruction of social justice, correction of the convict, and prevention of new crimes. Considering each of the items separately, it becomes clear that the objectives cannot be reached by the death penalty. Under the reconstruction of social justice, the recovery of violated rights and freedoms is understood.
However, the rights and freedoms of the victim or his or her relatives cannot be restored after the criminal’s death. Also, with the death of criminal offenders, it is impossible to correct them. For example, serial killers with extraordinary brutality in crimes cannot be justified in the eyes of the people and the relatives of the victims, but they did not exactly have a chance to think about their behavior and to benefit society in the future.
Moreover, the expectation of death often motivates and encourages the sentenced to think that nothing will change. It is considered that life imprisonment and isolation from society scares criminals much more than the death penalty. As for the prevention of new crimes, the death penalty is not to stop people from committing crimes.