Introduction
The death penalty as a form of punishment is still in use in many jurisdictions. Consequently, two highly opposed perspectives exist on this topic, and both have served as a foundation for debates across a wide range of platforms. These perspectives are about whether the death penalty is ethical or not.
Those who believe in and advocate for the death penalty are convinced that it is morally justifiable and should be maintained because they believe that those who commit crimes worthy of it deserve to be punished severely. There are, however, those who think that capital punishment is immoral and barbaric and has nothing to do with humanism. Based on extensive research backed by legal and moral principles, the death penalty is indeed unethical. The death penalty should be prohibited because it does not ensure deterrence, is costly, and causes unnecessary brutality.
Argument Against the Death Penalty
There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that the possibility of death deters those who may otherwise commit a crime. In addition, some people maintain that implementing the death penalty does not result in a reduction in the total number of crimes but rather serves simply as a tool for exacting revenge (Amnesty International, 2019). States with and without the death sentence have similar rates of violent crime and murder.
There has been no statistically significant change in the general crime rate or the murder rate in states that have abolished the death sentence. The presence of death penalty laws misleads the people into thinking that the government has taken adequate measures to reduce crime and murder. But these kinds of legislation do not do much to protect communities from dangerous criminals.
Moreover, the death penalty is very costly and should thus be prohibited. Many individuals have the misconception that the state would save money by using the death penalty since an individual who has been put to death will no longer need incarceration, medical care, or other associated costs. However, the reality of the contemporary use of the death penalty has shown that premise to be incorrect.
The death penalty is much more costly than other forms of punishment because it involves extra expenditures and takes significantly more time than other forms (Adinkrah & Clemens, 2018). Because they try to ensure that the person’s life is ended, ironically, in the most humane way possible, states must devote a significant portion of their available resources to the relatively infrequent instances, including the death sentence. The use of the death penalty is a waste of government money since death row offenders often remain there for decades and make many court appearances.
Furthermore, the death sentence might result in the wrongful execution of an innocent person. This concern is not without basis since the criminal justice system is not 100 percent perfect, and errors may occur within it. For example, judges and juries have occasionally made errors in their rulings, which may sometimes result in the unjust incarceration of persons, as evident from the Central Park jogger case (Killebrew, 2019). This case resulted in the wrongful conviction of young men of color from unprivileged backgrounds. Since the death sentence eliminates any possibility of a person being granted justice if the legal system made a mistake or misjudgment, it should be done away with.
Another reason to prohibit the death penalty is the unnecessary brutality of the process. Deshwal (2017) asserts that sterile and depersonalized execution techniques do not eradicate the brutal nature of the death penalty, even though less gruesome ways of killing, such as lethal injection, have been introduced. As a result, using the death sentence is immoral, and most people feel that it should be done away with altogether (Jouet, 2020). Moreover, the brutality it causes to individuals counters the objectives of the law towards ending crime, as such brutality in itself should be considered an act of crime.
Argument For the Death Penalty
On the other hand, others maintain that the death penalty is both essential and effective for preventing future crimes. Punishing unlawful behavior is the first argument favoring this point of view. According to the philosophical viewpoint expressed by Immanuel Kant, the perpetrator of a murder ought to make amends by voluntarily giving up their own life (Steffen, 2020). By providing the perpetrator with a punishment proportionate to their offense, the death penalty helps guarantee justice. According to the law, the death sentence may only be handed out for the most severe offenses, such as murder. Therefore, according to the viewpoints of those who support this position, it is immoral to simply put an individual who has been found guilty of murder in jail; instead, they believe that the appropriate course of action in such a scenario would be to issue a death sentence and carry out the individual’s execution.
Another reason for the lethal sentence is the probability that the perpetrator would kill again after prison. As mentioned earlier, there is no evidence to suggest that imposing the death sentence deters individuals from engaging in criminal conduct. On the other hand, the general public’s view frequently diverges from the data acquired by professionals. According to Seal (2017), during the whole of the twentieth century, a vast number of individuals believed that the mandatory use of the death sentence was the only effective means of discouraging criminal behavior. As a result, the only thing that could make some people feel safe and secure is if the government implemented the death penalty.
Proponents of the death penalty also argue that it protects society from vicious criminals. In contrast to other penalties, executing a death sentence results in the loss of the offender’s life and prevents them from ever being able to contribute to society again. The majority of punishments that are handed down to criminals require them to serve significant time behind bars.
After serving their time, felons can rejoin society and participate in communal life once their sentences are served. As a result, there is a high probability that the same formerly incarcerated individual would commit more crimes against society (Jasni & Nasir, 2020). Therefore, those advocating for the death penalty aim to eliminate these individuals to prevent them from re-engaging in crime if released from prison.
Conclusion
The death penalty is an outrageous infringement of civil rights. It is incompatible with the core principles guiding a legal system that relies on constitutional precepts. In reality, the use of the death sentence is not only barbaric but also discriminatory and unequal.
It must, however, be noted that opposing the death penalty does not in any way glorify criminals. It simply advocates for other effective sentences other than death for the criminal. Through legal action, legislative reform, and public activism against the cruel nature of the institutions that administer the death sentence, it is possible to abolish the death penalty. No nation-state should ever grant itself the authority to murder its citizens.
References
Adinkrah, M., & Clemens, W. M. (2018). To reinstate or to not reinstate? An exploratory study of student perspectives on the death penalty in Michigan. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 62(1), 229-252.
Amnesty International Australia. (2019). Five reasons to abolish death penalty.
Deshwal, S. (n.d.). Death penalty: Contemporary issues. Indian National Bar Association.
Jasni, M. A. B., Ah, S. H. A. B., & Nasir, N. C. M. (2020). Three major interrelated factors contributing to homelessness issue among former prisoners in Malaysia. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 9, 415-430.
Jouet, M. (2020). Death penalty abolitionism from the enlightenment to modernity. American Journal of Comparative Law.
Killebrew, M. (2019). Why They Ignored Us: Ideology and Hypermediation in the Central Park Jogger Case.Academia.
Seal, L. (2017). Perceptions of safety, fear and social change in the public’s pro-death penalty discourse in mid twentieth-century Britain. Crime, Histoire & Sociétés / Crime, History & Societies, 21(1), 1-24.
Steffen, J. R. (2020). Moral Cognition in Criminal Punishment. British Journal of American Legal Studies, 9(1), 143-179.