There is hardly any doubt that when one makes a decision to take someone else’s life, it must be considered a crime. However, this is a basic premise of the death penalty, and the opinions on the practice vary widely. According to Proquest Staff, the death penalty has a history of thousands of years. When it comes to the United States, Supreme Court decisions, changes in legislation, and attention to the issue of civil rights organizations have created a system that aims at justice regulated by mercy. Federal courts put an end to executions in 1967 until major issues regarding the death penalty were resolved. However, after ten years, most American states had altered their laws in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines, and capital punishment was reintroduced in 37 of them. The practice’s opponents believe that the death penalty is inhumane and violates the intrinsic value of life, while proponents argue that it is a fair retribution for certain types of crimes that protects society.
Those who advocate the unacceptability of the practice explain their position by stating that the death penalty violates fundamental, inalienable human rights. One such advocate is Amnesty International, a non-governmental organization that fights for the end of the abuse of human rights. According to it, human rights agencies prohibit any form of torture that can lead to death or permanent incapacity. The death penalty seems to fit the description since the execution of criminals is associated with physical pain and psychological suffering. While some believe that this pain is deserved by certain individuals, Amnesty International considers this position morally wrong as physical and psychological pain associated with capital punishment is impossible to quantify. Therefore, the death penalty cannot be justified by the seriousness of a crime or its trial duration. If one believes that further multiplication of pain and suffering is detrimental to society, they are to support the abolition of the death penalty.
Moreover, human life is universally considered intrinsically valuable and cannot be put into the physical state of mere aliveness. Therefore, as per Amnesty International, the death penalty threatens the value of human life, which is contemplated through dignity and respect. Criminals, while having done some wrong things, deserve to be treated like other human beings in terms of how much their lives are worth (Amnesty International). It means that, regardless of their past mistakes, offenders must not pay the price that the death penalty requires. Consequently, the believers in the definitive value of human life are to be the abolitionists of capital punishment.
However, some consider the death penalty the only solution that can adequately punish perpetrators of crimes that betray human morality, such as murder and treason. Among these is Bruce Fein, an American constitutional law specialist who believes that death penalty abolitionists’ arguments are unconvincing. For instance, Fein states that it would be immoral to watch the Holocaust’s victims and preach that the death penalty was draconian. Consequently, the death penalty supporters propound that a life of an individual cannot be equated to the lives of millions of victims. Moreover, according to Fein, some criminals’ actions can be too grave to allow them to interact further with society, and the death penalty prevents possible crimes that could lead to more deaths and damage. In addition to that, human morality involves doing justice to the injured and the suffering and letting serious offenders cause their victims psychological pain by not being subjected to proper punishment is immoral. Therefore, those who believe that there are offenders who deserve supreme punishment measures must realize the necessity of the death penalty.
In addition, capital punishment is frequently likened to the government’s actions that risk many people’s lives. For one, sending soldiers to combat is associated with human suffering and consequent death. Soldiers’ deaths are socially justified since they lose their lives to defend their countries from external and internal enemies. Fein argues that the death penalty is intended to protect people from the most horrendous crimes committed by offenders who know no compassion. For instance, those with multiple murder and rape cases can only be punished by death to prevent similar crimes in the future. Moreover, crimes like treason can put the lives of millions of a country’s citizens at risk. Executing criminals behind these misdeeds means defending the lives of others since detention may not help stop the acts. If a person believes that there are solutions that can be morally wrong but necessary to protect people, they are to advocate that the death penalty should not be abolished.
When it comes to the common ground for both sides of the argument, it is the fact that human life is intrinsically valuable and that the death penalty is a violation of that value. However, while death penalty proponents believe that it might be justified, their opponents disagree. Human rights organizations argue that killing someone devalues their dignity and respect in accordance with universal human rights. However, the penalty is supported by others on the ground that it helps save people from violent criminals who otherwise could cause a lot of damage to society. One solution that could benefit both sides is alternative sentencing, such as life without parole: while criminals get isolated from society forever, their sacred right to life is preserved. Common ground in such delicate issues is important as it ensures both sides of the debate agree on the fairness of the solution and no one is offended. Essentially, this problem must matter to those outside of the debate, too: each person can become a victim of a crime, and they better not wait until it happens to consider which punishment measures are fair.
Works Cited
Amnesty International. “The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished.” Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints, 2009, Web.
Fein, Bruce. “The Death Penalty Should Not Be Abolished.” Context: Opposing Viewpoints, 2013, Web.
Proquest Staff. Capital Punishment Timeline. SIRS Issues Researcher, 2022, Web.