Death Penalty

 

Claim: Victorian Supreme Court judge Lex Lasry articulates that death penalty does not put off crime but is rather a dreadful thing to do.

Verdict:  There is a limited study on whether the death penalty discourages crimes. Professionals who have reflected on the issue of the death penalty as a penalty for murder claims there is no adequate proof to conclude that death penalty prevents crimes.

Support: Tshe death penalty is not an established deterrent for future murderers 

The final reprimand of a crime of the highest degree is death penalty. There is no other recognized penalty than death itself. At the moment, fifty-eight nations carry out the death penalty and the United States is one of them.  Presently, the U.S l use death penalty if a person is held responsible for a first-degree murder.  Those who believe in death penalty suppose that capital punishment will discourage murderers. In this essay, I will argue that death penalty does not discourage criminals and that states that carry out death penalty should veto the practice.

Before making an argument, it is important to present some backdrop of the death penalty. The initiative of capital punishment was introduced from Britain when the founding fathers affirmed sovereignty. The predecessors loved the initiative of death penalty given that it was a universal part of life. Europeans practiced death penalty for a variety of crimes. The first recorded execution in America took place in Jamestown in the year 1608 once a man identified as George Kendal was put to death for disloyalty. In the previous colonial time, laws relating to capital punishment differed from region to the other. Throughout the 19th century, the death penalty altered noticeably at it started to lose its recognition. States did not commit open executions. Instead, all execution was practiced confidentially. Ultimately, some states put an end to the death penalty.

Punishment as a prevention has been an aim that has not succeeded for ages. This model has failed to work though some people still think that it should be used to all criminals. In an article, “Death Penalty Is Deterrence”, the writers claim that by carrying out the death penalty, brutal crimes will lessen. It is true that brutal transgressions have reduced by 11% with massacres showing the prime decline (Harrell, 2016). This has occurred to some extent as a result of the powerful indication that death penalty is for aggressive criminals as well as murderers.

Revenge has as well been an objective for ages. Understandably, if a murderer is executed, killing would come to an end. Supporters of the death penalty believe that when a person’s life is taken, the stability of fairness is troubled. Unless that stability is restored, society surrenders to rule of violent behavior.  Only the death sentence of the killers restores and allows the social order to persuasively show that murder is an unbearable offence which will be penalized in kind. This philosophy has lots of faults mainly with death issues. For instance, if a state is disciplining an individual for a massacre, what gives that state the privilege to kill?

Lots of studies appear to invalidate the assumption that death penalty is an excellent prevention against brutal crimes and assassinations.  As per the Death Penalty Information Center, countries that do not practice death penalty have lesser execution rates (imonović, I., & United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, 2014). The reason why the death penalty does not work as a deterrent is that the criminal does not think they will be caught. Reasonably, no one would commit an offence with the knowledge that they will be caught and executed. Prevention is a mental procedure thus lawbreakers do not believe that actual threat is present and there will be no avoidance.

Death penalty as vengeance no longer makes sense in the humanity today.  By execution of a criminal, the government conveys subconscious messages regarding execution. The position of capital punishment is for the reason that the administration wants to articulate that murder is an unbearable crime. By murdering a criminal, the administration challenges itself. Additionally, death penalty appears as settling of scores.  Two mistakes cannot make a right and assassination of a murderer will not re-establish the life or the executed. Currently, scandalous laws should reflect higher values than a vengeance.

Currently, the death penalty cannot be declared a competent form of vengeance. There are massive delays in practicing the death sentence of a convict. Figures confirm that there is an over eight year’s wait prior to carrying out an execution. Actually, nearly all death row convicts die of old age prior to their execution verdict. For instance, there are around seven hundred convicts on California’s death row. In case the fashion continues in the same approach, it would mean that most convicts would die of normal causes prior to their execution sentence.

Individuals who consider the death penalty as vengeance fail to accommodate the execution processes in the criminal justice structure. Lawfully, a convict is allowed to petition for their cases. A petition is essential because the procedure is intended to defend against human faults. A typical petition can take more than ten years.  There are basically not adequate judges to act in response to all petition cases assessments. For instance, the U.S Supreme Court collects thousands of case appraisals yearly but since there are just nine judges in the Supreme Court, only some of the cases are assessed (Arrigo, 2012). For these reasons, the death penalty cannot be declared as a competent room for justice.

Death penalty often happens to the poor. States that still practice death penalty should be free of execution but instead, have the most murder and vice versa. Conviction of the blameless occurs and death makes a miscarriage of fairness permanent. For instance, Maine and Rhode Island put an end to the death penalty as a result of community embarrassment and penitence after they discovered the death sentence of blameless men.  Was that not a good enough reason to disprove the efficiency of a death sentence? In addition, some criminologists maintain having statistically confirmed that when a capital punishment is exposed, more assassinations take place in the day as well as following weeks. A good example of this is the abduction of Linberg (Feser & Bessette, 2017). A number of countries espoused the death penalty for such offences but records demonstrated an increase in the abduction. Exposure might persuade offences instead of preventing it.  There is no proof that death penalty yield augmented protection against execution. This argument for the persistence of the death penalty is probably prevention but has been unsuccessful as a disincentive.

In conclusion, the death penalty should be put to an end since it does not solve its intended purpose. There is no convincing proof that supports those who believe that death penalty works.  There is proof though that death penalty is deteriorating. Executing a death row convict is extensive than a simple task. There can be elongated postponements in the execution procedures. Convicts die before their execution sentence.  Looking at the question of what is achieved to put someone on death row, it is obvious that death penalty is not a solution. The victim is already departed and executing the criminal will not bring him back to life. When the antagonists feel that panic of death will stop one from committing execution, it is not true because killings are done at the heart of fervor when a person cannot think reasonably. Consequently, death penalty makes mistakes permanent and the probability of mistake is unavoidable when based on the human ruling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Arrigo, B. A. (2012). Introduction to forensic psychology - court, law enforcement, and

 corrections.

Feser, E., & Bessette, J. M. (2017). By man shall his blood be shed: A Catholic defense of capital

 punishment.

Harrell, M. P. C. M. U. (2016). What is the argument? - an introduction to philosophical

            argument and analy.

Šimonović, I., & United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner.

(2014). Moving away from the death penalty: Arguments, trends and perspectives. New York: United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner.