The use of capital punishment within the legal system is one of the highly contested issues in the United States and the world. The death penalty occurs when a person or individual gets punished by being put to death. Proponents of the death penalty argue that it helps in eliminating felons who are members of criminal groups. However, their argument is flawed since they fail to consider the numerous wrongful convictions made in the courts. The government sanctions capital punishment to serve justice for offenses considered capital felonies, such as treason, murder, and terrorism. However, other forms of punishment can be applied through rehabilitation in jail to avoid instances where families are left to mourn for their relatives. For capital punishments, forms of execution include death by hanging, electrocution, lethal injections, shooting, and even gassing. However, executing offenders does not prevent crime, is inhumane, and promotes violence over rehabilitation. Capital punishment is also associated with discrimination and violates the right to life. Therefore, the death penalty is not effective as it does not promote the human right to live and the choice to rehabilitate.
Executing offenders is not an effective approach because it takes away a person’s life and human dignity. The right to life is among the fundamental rights of human beings across the globe (Nagelsen and Huckleberry 2). Through the death penalty, persons sentenced to death do not get a chance to live as expected. The law is supposed to respect every individual’s right, including those condemned to death penalties. It is the duty of those enforcing the law to protect each person’s life, regardless of who they are and what the person has done. (Nagelsen and Huckleberry 2). The death penalty takes away citizens’ dignity and lives since the government decides when they will die. Notably, the government should be a body that facilitates the promotion of human life and dignity and not the one that sanctions the killing of human beings (Nagelsen and Huckleberry 4). Further, it carries no affirmative value, and it proves expensive. Through this realization, there has been a constant decrease in the number of death penalties in the United States. Therefore, this form of punishment is ineffective since it violates the right to life and human dignity.
In most countries, the death penalty fails to consider the crimes that women commit and the circumstances under which they were committed. Available statistics about the women sentenced for murder show that they committed the crime as a way of self-defense from abusive relatives and spouses (Lourtau and Hickey 11). For example, in China, over half of the women sentenced to death murdered a response to gender-based violence (Lourtau and Hickey 11). In most nations, the law does not consider that these women were killing their abusers, who the law had failed to apprehend. Discrimination has a direct link with death penalties, thus rendering the punishment ineffective. Factors that perpetuate discrimination may include deficient defense counsel and, in some cases, race (Steiker and Steiker 243). The lack of economic independence and supportive institutions to facilitate divorce does not exist in some nations, especially where there is a prevalence in marriages between young girls and older spouses. Women in the Middle East and Asia are also more likely to face the death penalty for drug-related crimes.
Additionally, over 40 women in Iran were hanged due to engaging in drug crimes between 2001 and 2017 (Lourtau and Hickey 12). On the other hand, men were more likely to get life sentences for similar or worse crimes. In Thailand, most women facing capital punishment are in prison due to drug crimes (Lourtau and Hickey 12). However, the Middle East and Asia’s justice systems ignore the gender and economic inequalities that push women to engage in such crimes. Research also shows that female victims of abuse are likely to indulge in smuggling and selling drugs as a way to boost their self-esteem (Lourtau and Hickey 12). In that case, research gaps in the criminal and social system have caused many women worldwide to die for crimes that they committed due to circumstances and inequalities within the social structure.
Capital punishment does not give individuals a chance to rehabilitate. Most people serving their time in jail have the chance to reflect on their crimes and become better people deeply. Apart from putting criminals away to serve justice, the prison system is also there to rehabilitate criminals and give them a chance to be better citizens. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence to prove that the death penalty prevents crime or lowers deterrence rates. Although remorse does not work for everyone to help them change, the death penalty gives no chances for those sentenced to change or try to become better (Nagelsen and Huckleberry 2). Therefore, justice cannot be served using a punishment that seeks to take away the lives of the same people in correctional facilities. Abolishing capital punishment is one way to prove that correctional facilities are functional. It also helps save people who may be convicted for drug smuggling, which requires rehabilitation. Hence, the death penalty is ineffective since it fails to recognize the significance of correctional centers in rehabilitating offenders.
Sentencing offenders found guilty of the crimes to death does not reduce murder cases, terrorism acts, and treason charges substantially. Serial killers and terrorists continue with their criminal activities, get caught, and are sentenced to death in some cases. In countries such as Canada where the death penalty is banned, the rate of murder seems to be lower than when the death penalty was active (Amnesty International). Also, there have been cases where innocent convicts face execution through the death penalty (Tortorice 532). Capital punishment, when implemented to punish a person, cannot be appealed since death is final. There should be no mistakes where innocents face the death penalty’s execution to be deemed effective and fair for those committing capital offenses (Tortorice 532). In this respect, life imprisonment sentences can replace death since, in imprisonment, there is no chance to make a terrible mistake right. For instance, many innocent people in the US have been subjected to the death sentence for crimes they have not committed. Records show that 155 people have been freed from death row since 1976, while one out of ten was executed (Sethuraju et al. 4). Death penalties are highly subjective, especially when innocent persons are involved, as they pose a significant violation of human rights.
The American criminal justice face accusations of racial injustice due to the skewed number of incarcerated offenders based on ethnicity. More so, racial disparity in capital punishment has existed since colonial times (Steiker and Steiker 243). In essence, racial discrimination is linked to the number of deaths through execution, which renders the punishment ineffective. Notably, African Americans have experienced heightened disparate treatment in capital crimes under neutral capital statutes. Further, following the Civil War, the black community experienced a lengthy era of lynching with minimal legal protection. This exposed many individuals to the death penalty, mostly since the Supreme Court avoids race issues in such legal proceedings (Steiker and Steiker 244). Other factors that perpetuate discrimination may include deficient defense counsel afforded to offenders from the African American community. This is because most are inexperienced in cases involving capital felonies, further increasing the chances of being sentenced to death. Moreover, most offenders on death row can barely afford quality and experienced defense counsels. Based on these findings, capital punishment fails to achieve its purpose of deterring crime and becomes a channel for promoting systemic discrimination against vulnerable groups.
Proponents of the death penalty base their arguments on retribution law, deterrence, and incapacitating capital offenders’ costs. Retribution stands as a primary reason for supporting capital punishment. One of the support claims of retribution is that punishment should cause equal harm to the offender as the damage caused by the criminal act. Another perspective indicates that the death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for murder convicts since the crime involved a deliberate killing of the victim (Sethuraju et al. 4). This approach depicts anger-directed retribution to the pain caused to those affected by the murder. However, morality governs human actions noting that it is wrong to kill someone despite their actions. Further, this argument is grounded on the fact that innocent people might be executed due to the death penalty’s blunt nature. Moreover, research on capital punishment’s effects shows that it does not contribute significantly to deterrence (Sethuraju et al. 4). Besides, the brutalization effect elicited by the death penalty might lead to increased homicides and violent crimes. In that case, the death penalty does not provide a solution to current crimes and may serve as a way of satisfying other people’s retributive anger.
Capital punishment has long been thought to lower incarceration costs as more offenders are imprisoned in the US, leading to overcrowding. However, research has shown that in states where the death penalty is practiced, the process has become more expensive than life imprisonment. The costs of the death penalty arise from the prolonged legal process and expensive living conditions. Notably, the complexity of issuing a death sentence on an offender increases the costs from prosecution to the final hearing. Statistics show that the average time spent in death penalty cases was 74 and 190 months in 1984 and 2012 (McFarland 54). This indicates that inmates serve almost double sentences because of the extended stays during the prosecution process. Furthermore, death row offenders are expensive to maintain during incarceration because they require high security, which raises the costs of supervision and living conditions (McFarland 56). More so, the number of executions has significantly reduced over the years due to the death penalty’s controversial nature. Therefore, allowing such persons to serve life imprisonment can reduce prolonged legal proceedings costs due to the complex legal system.
In most cases involving terrorism, capital punishment when executed does more wrong than good for citizens. Many governments enforce death penalties in the name of national security. However, many terrorists commit crimes and persecutions without fear of death, as most of them are willing to die for their terrorist beliefs (Bibi et al. 43). This means that killing such individuals propels their religious beliefs, such as becoming martyrs to those idolizing them. The Islamic fighters continue to ravage peaceful countries on the argument of holy war, which only increases when imprisoned offenders are killed. The followers praise the ‘martyrs’ causing more destruction than good and affecting not only victims but also every other citizen in the affected countries (Bibi et al. 43). Also, some civilians get death sentences due to condemnation from confessions extracted by employing torture. However, despite the terrorist attacks, the death penalty is inhumane. Capital punishments are executed in different approaches where some such electrocution is painful. How the ‘martyr’ is executed might solicit an emotional response from other followers, leading to increased acts of terrorism. Therefore, in terror-related cases, the death sentence is not practical since the terrorists are committed to the suicide mission.
The death penalty can reduce homicides as studies have shown that abolition of capital punishment has led to increased unlawful killings. Studies show that publicizing executions decreases the number of homicides (Muramatsu et al. 432). This is because capital punishment functions as a temporary deterrent factor for homicides. In that case, people are dissuaded from committing a crime if capital punishment is implemented swiftly. However, the increasing complexity of criminal justice systems across the world hampers the probability of executing offenders without lengthy court proceedings. Furthermore, studies in the UK have shown that the number of unlawful killings has increased since capital punishment was abolished in 1964 (Chen 7). Although public opinion tends to show that the death penalty is not effective, the significance of receiving a death sentence might hinder people from committing crimes. In cases where an individual premeditates to commit murder, the person may be discouraged by the thought of being issued the death penalty. On the other hand, the death penalty may not certainly prevent future capital crimes from being committed by other people. As death remains irreversible, there is an assurance of a crime not repeated by an individual already executed.
In conclusion, the death penalty has proven ineffective since it affects the dignity of human life, inhibits rehabilitation, and adversely affects the distribution of justice. Besides, executing people does not show a positive response towards crime deterrence. Justice should be fair, observing the rights of the condemned. Taking another person’s life will always have consequences, which in this case, outweigh the benefits associated with the death penalty. In a world where people cry for social justice, there has to be a readiness to take full responsibility for taking a life, especially where the life taken is that of an innocent individual. The death penalty has been proved ineffective in most cases where discrimination is apparent, especially in the US despite being a democracy. The criminal justice system also fails to recognize the circumstances in which a homicide occurred, leading to women’s wrongful convictions on violent marriages. They are also devalued, and the events under which they save themselves from abusive spouses are always ignored. Maintaining the death penalty negates the promoting quality of life and the development of justice across the world.
Works Cited
Amnesty International. “The Death Penalty, Answered.” Amnesty International, 2020, Web.
Bibi, Sughra, Qian Hongdao, Najeeb Ullah, and Muhammad Bilawal Khaskheli. “Excessive Use of Death Penalty as Stoppage Tool for Terrorism: Wrongful Death Executions In Pakistan.” JL Pol’y & Globalization, vol. 81, 2019, pp. 42-52. IISTE.
Chen, Daniel L. “The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty? Evidence From British Commutations During World War I.” Evidence from British Commutations During World War I, 2017, pp. 1-140. SSRN.
Lourtau, Delphine, and Sharon Pia Hickey. Judged For More Than Her Crime: A Global Overview of Women Facing the Death Penalty. Cornell Law School, 2018.
Mbah, Ruth Endam, Tanisha Pruitt, and Divine Forcha Wasum. “Cruel Choice: The Ethics and Morality of the Death Penalty.” Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 9, no. 24, 2019, pp. 14-22. IISTE.
McFarland, Torin. “The Death Penalty vs. Life Incarceration: A Financial Analysis.” Susquehanna University Political Review vol. 7, no. 1, 2016, 46-87. SAGE Journals.
Muramatsu, Kanji, David T. Johnson, and Koiti Yano. “The Death Penalty and Homicide Deterrence in Japan.” Punishment & Society vol. 20 no. 4, 2018, pp. 432-457. SAGE Journals.
Nagelsen, Susan, and Charles Huckelbury. “The Death Penalty and Human Dignity: An Existential Fallacy.” Laws, vol. 5, no. 25, 2016, pp. 1-5. MDPI.
Sethuraju, Raj, Jason Sole, and Brian E. Oliver. “Understanding Death Penalty Support and Opposition among Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Students.” SAGE Open, vol. 6, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-15. SAGE Journals.
Steiker, Carol S., and Jordan M. Steiker. “The American Death Penalty and the (in) Visibility of Race.” The University of Chicago Law Review, 2015, pp. 243-294.
Tortorice, Marla D. “Costs Versus Benefits: The Fiscal Realities of the Death Penalty in Pennsylvania.” U. Pitt. L. Rev. vol. 78, 2016, pp. 519-555. ULS.