The death penalty issue attracts different views not only in the United States but also across the globe. For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that the death sentence violates the constitutional restriction against unusual and cruel punishments (Bedau para. 1). The U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection and due process to every American resident. It would be wrong for the state and federal leaders to support a punishment method, which kills human beings with ceremony and premeditation in the disguise of law enforcement, yet in a discriminatory fashion. On their part, supporters of the death penalty argue that most convicted offenders have either killed or committed a capital offense (Roeder et al. 15). In this regard, they try to justify that a person who commits murder does not deserve to live. However, it is essential to appreciate that approving the death sentence is equal to supporting the killing practice. Essentially, the U.S. leaders should ban the death penalty because it encourages vengeance, violates the constitution, and degrades life’s value, among other adverse effects, thus contributing to more harm than good.
Foremost, the death penalty focuses on serving the retribution purpose, which is morally wrong. According to Roeder et al., retribution is one of the punishment goals in the American justice system, guaranteeing revenge for the victims and their families (43). Although people feel pain when someone hurts them, the standards of a mature democracy, such as the United States, necessities a more reasonable and measured response than retribution. The emotional impulse for vengeance does not warrant reliance on a system of capital punishment, which is characterized by several risks and problems (Kyambalesa 6). Allowing criminals to kill as a “payback” encourages the “eye for an eye” notion, thus undermining peaceful coexistence. Indeed, it would be challenging for the American leaders to convince the citizens to deviate from murder while supporting the death sentence. Pursuing revenge is only self-centered and cannot fully guarantee victims’ satisfaction. Consequently, the United States should adopt rational crime control and response measures which would meet the values of a mature society.
The death penalty denies an offender the right to life, thus degrading its value. The U.S. Constitution perceives human life as sacred irrespective of an individual’s social and economic status (Bedau para. 7). Correspondingly, even the most cruel killers have a right to life and should not be deprived of the worth of their existence. Some individuals may feel that an offender who kills deserves to die as well. Nevertheless, it is significant to understand that responding to a crime with a crime cannot be justified. It is prudent to give criminals who commit first-degree murder a second chance. Rehabilitation is a unique way of helping offenders reflect on their actions and decide to change. Some convicts kill others due to impulse inspiration, and thus, given an opportunity, they can realize what they did wrong. Those offenders who prove they cannot change should be better subjected to life imprisonment than murdered. Therefore, condemning criminals to the death sentence violates their rights and undermines the value of every citizen’s life because people are equal under the law.
The death sentence is not a verified deterrent to future homicides, thus discrediting its necessity. One of the primary reasons for the capital punishment is to deter criminals from killing and committing other acts of terror. However, Hood and Hoyle argue that the overwhelming conclusions from various studies over the years have demonstrated that life imprisonment considerably surpasses the death sentence in attaining the deterrence objective (81). States iwhich do not embrace the death penalty exhibit lower murder rates than those implementing it. For example, the statistics between 2000 to 2005 in America demonstrated 25 to 46% higher murder cases in states favoring capital punishment compared to those which opposed to it (Bedau para. 32). Hood and Hoyle (84) add that the U.S. records higher homicide and assassination rates than European countries and Canada, which ban the death sentence. Individuals tend to forget people when they die, but the memories of those in custody remain in their minds. Instead of killing criminals, it would be reasonable to punish them through life imprisonment without parole because it serves as a lesson to potential offenders.
The death penalty is also an unusual and cruel punishment, which undermines the Eighth Amendment protecting offenders from brutal and unreasonable sentences as well as excessive bail and fines (Hood and Hoyle 56). Capital punishment is unusual because it is only practiced in the U.S. among all western industrialized countries. Besides, only a random sampling of sentenced murderers receives the death penalty. According to Kyambalesa, reliance on traditional barbaric and other corporal castigations leads to cruelty (12). For example, a criminal has to be detained in a safe house awaiting the execution day. The emotional torture and the actual pain during the hanging process amount to double punishments. Undeniably, the primary tenet of the Eighth Amendment was to address such injustices. It is ethically wrong to ignore laws and social goodwill in favor of self-centered gratification, contributing to the loss of lives in a brutal manner.
Furthermore, the death penalty is irreversible, and the risk of executing innocent individuals precludes its use. Once an offender is killed, the jury cannot take any actions to correct the situation if a mistake is made. There has been an outcry by the public and the offenders due to judicial system flaws, leading to capital punishment for innocent persons. Since 1973, statistics reveal that the United States’ courts have released at least 88 individuals after the emergence of their evidence of innocence (Bohm 43). Unfortunately, during the same period, there have been executions of about 650 people. Working with these figures, for every seven persons convicted to a death sentence, one individual is innocent. Notably, capital punishment presents an intolerable risk of killing innocent persons. Sadly, technology might escalate this threat due to the increased disguise of terrorists and criminals using stolen personal information. Therefore, considering the probability of judicial system prosecution errors, the death sentence becomes unreliable and should be prohibited in America.
The United States should also abolish the death penalty because it is encouraging discrimination and unfairness. In practice, capital punishment does not isolate the worst criminals; instead, it chooses arbitrary groups based on illogical factors, including the crime’s location, the defense counsel’s quality, and the victim’s or the defendant’s race (Death Penalty Information Center 6). Regrettably, a significant number of offenders facing the death sentence cannot afford their attorneys. They depend on the quality of lawyers provided by the state, although most of them lack the necessary experience in capital offenses, which leads to high possibility of death sentence. From a race perspective, the United States has executed about 158 black offenders for killing white victims, while only 11 white defendants have been sentenced to death since 1973 (Bohm 35). Such racial disparities lead to questioning the fairness of capital punishment. It is also arbitrary for a person in one state to get the death penalty, while another receives a life sentence in different state for the same crime. There is a dire need to end death sentences to harmonize the prosecution process and inspire fairness.
Finally, another reason explaining the necessity for abolishing the death sentence is high costs. Different scholars, professionals from non-governmental organizations and specialists from universities agree that the expenses associated with capital punishment considerably exceed those of life imprisonment (Kyambalesa 12). Indeed, the death penalty leads to the diversion of resources meant for control measures and other alternative case settlement methods. The U.S. Constitution requires rigorous and lengthy judicial procedures for capital crimes. For instance, the jury and defense counsel spend significant time to progress to trial. In addition, capital offenses are characterized by several appeals, which increases their costs. The subject of fees should be of great concern because it determines how the courts can fulfill their duties effectively and timely (McFarland 52). It is unreasonable to observe an expensive justice avenue while there is a less costly approach. Adopting life imprisonment would help lessen the judicial expenses associated with the death sentence. The court system can reexamine and eliminate some processes associated with the case.
Conversely, there are certain counterarguments against banning the death penalty in the United States. Firstly, supporters claim that retribution is an important goal of punishment and every person who kills deserves to die to satisfy the vengeance of the victims’ families and friends (Kyambalesa 7). In their view, it is illogical to save criminals who have proved they do not value the lives of others. The courts are responsible for punishing offenders who commit crimes, and recommending executions is part of their duties. Besides, it is unfair to blame victims and their families for pursuing revenge, including the death sentence, because they are entitled to such desires in their pain and loss. Proponents also claim that it is shocking that some individuals oppose death penalty, yet they campaign against under punishment (Roeder et al. 44). Such people seem confused because the death sentence guarantees their demands, and thus, they should support it. Retributive punishment is proportional, limited, and appropriately directed towards the right crimes. It is perverse to ban the death sentence, while it balances punishment with the committed offense.
The supporters of the death penalty also use divine and human values to strengthen their position. They advise Christians, who constitute the majority of the American population, to read the Holy Bible carefully to envision their misconceptions concerning capital punishment. In their opinion, most Christian groups oppose the death sentence and selectively explain God’s forgiveness and mercy while deliberately ignoring the discussion relating to His justice (Bohm 67). Consistently, proponents highlight that the Bible talks about different forms of punishments, including unquenchable fire and destruction, in both Old and New Testaments. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the laws but to strengthen and fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). It is illogical that Christians are fighting the death penalty, yet they preach about the destruction of sinners using enormous fire in hell. Other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam also demonstrate the death sentence’s obligation for those who kill. Accordingly, capital punishment is an extension of religious teachings and should be embraced to safeguard human and ethical values.
Lastly, proponents of the death sentence argue that it is a significant deterrence and cost-effective punishment approach. They believe that the tribulations experienced by an executed offender serve an excellent lesson to potential criminals. According to Hood and Hoyle, society members also develop the fear, which inspires them to avoid crimes (71). Significantly, the death penalty ensures criminals die, thus fulfilling the fundamental objective of incapacitation. This withdrawal of the offenders from society and prison eliminates any chance of motivating other individuals into crime. Executing criminals also saves the country substantial funds which would be used to cater to their needs in prison if they are jailed for life. Besides, supporters of capital punishment suggest that justice cannot be equated to monetary value (McFarland 63). They argue that courts should not be profit-making entities, and as long as they are not exceeding their budgets, the issue of costs remains of little concern. The death sentence is a cost-effective punishment method that helps restore sanity in American society by enhancing crime deterrence.
Despite the concerns raised by the proponents, their arguments are unjustified and dispensable. For instance, retribution is ethically wrong because it encourages “an eye for an eye” retrogressive practice. Adopting revenge in American society would increase cases of murder despite government’s efforts to promote peaceful coexistence (Bohm 12). Approving the idea of killing offenders because they committed murder, supporters of death penalty seem to forget that I his way, they become equal to criminals, and rehabilitation should be the American justice system’s guiding principle. It is also unreasonable to use Bible or religious groups to justify murder despite the existing religious stereotyping, mainly associating Islam with terrorism. Besides, capital punishment has proved inefficient in deterring future criminal activities based on scientific studies due to people’s behavior of forgetting the deceased quickly (Bedau para. 53). It is also illogical to describe the death penalty as cost-effective while it requires rigorous and time-consuming procedures which use substantial resources. Notably, the counterarguments rely on speculative and unscientific claims which ignore the standards of industrialized and mature society.
Abolishing the death sentence in the United States has more merits than disadvantages. American society needs to embrace punishment methods, which safeguard peace and unity despite the proponents’ claims that capital punishment helps satisfy the aggrieved party’s vengeance. As the most progressive country and world’s superpower, the U.S. should act as the role model for underdeveloped and developing nations in promoting the value of human life. Giving offenders a second chance show the government’s belief that everyone can change and becomes instrumental in economic building. Instead of using considerable resources to encourage murder, it would be rational to utilize them to enact crime control measures, including awareness creation. It is time for the U.S. to strengthen constitutional rights to every resident to fight discrimination and create a sense of self-satisfaction as an American. Therefore, the death penalty hinders the United States’ progress and should be criminalized to avoid more harm than good in the government’s efforts to realize the American dream.
Works Cited
Bedau, Hugo Adam. “The Case Against the Death Penalty.” American Civil Liberties Union, 2012, Web.
Bohm, Robert M. Deathquest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States. Routledge, 2017.
Death Penalty Information Center. DPIC Analysis: Racial Disparities Persisted in U.S. Death Sentences and Executions in 2019, Web.
Hood, Roger, and Carolyn Hoyle. The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective. OUP Oxford, 2015.
Kyambalesa, Henry. “The Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against.” SSRN, 2019, pp. 1-29.
McFarland, Torin. “The Death Penalty vs. Life Incarceration: A Financial Analysis.” Susquehanna University Political Review, no. 7, vol. 1, 2016, pp. 46-87.
Roeder, Oliver K. et al. “What Caused the Crime Decline?” SSRN, 2015, pp. 1-139.