Why should death penalty be legal?
Introduction
Death penalty can be termed as the punishment that is sanctioned by the government to execute death (Bedau et al 59). This form of punishment can also be referred as capital punishment or a death sentence. It is vital to note that this type of punishment is mostly executed to people who have carried out capital crimes. Global statistics state that 39 countries are actively involved in this practice of death penalty while 103 have completely put an end to it for all types of crime (Bedau et al 67). Six countries have also abolished it for ordinary crimes but it is still valid for other types of crime such as war related crimes (Bedau et al 69).
This form of punishment has brought much controversy in different countries and especially in the United States on whether it is right or wrong. The European Union charter of fundamental rights opposes the use of capital punishment on any criminal irrespective of the type of crime committed (Garland 71). Even though, many countries have abolished the use of capital punishment, approximately 60% of the global population lives in countries where these executions still take place up to date; such countries are Indonesia, China, United States and India (Garland 77).
Executive summary
Crime can be seen everywhere around the globe. Daily news is covered with information about crimes and criminals until they have become part of our daily lives. Will this allow us to live in a dark society and let them ruin our lives and society as well? No, this cannot be. We have a duty to ensure that crime and all criminals are eliminated from our society and this is a fact that we cannot ignore. However, these criminals should be accorded right justice (Schabas 43). This can be explained by the fact that some criminals commit crime due to lack of another option especially in cases where their survival is threatened. Such criminals should not face death penalty. For example, a person who shoplifted some goods due to lack of finances to purchase has committed a crime but does not qualify for death penalty.
Nevertheless, there are other types of criminals who are serial killers and they do it for fun or for their personal gain and interests. An example is that of people who assassinate others in order to access power in politics. Such people should face capital punishment. This is to mean that I advocate for the death penalty but on capital crimes only. I believe that death penalty should continue in order to eliminate such people from our society.
The execution of criminals has been evident in almost all societies all over the world. This has been done in order to punish criminal and also to repress and stifle political disputes (Schabas 59). In many countries, the act of death penalty has been reserved for crimes that relate to murder, sedition, spying and surveillance. In other countries cases related to rape, incest, adultery and sodomy also lead to capital punishment (Stearman 14). Death penalty is also legible to death penalty is china as it is considered as a serious crime.
The global trend of execution in many parts of the world has moved to being less painful and more humanitarian as compared to execution in the 18th century in France where the guillotine was used to behead people or hanging in the 19th century by causing a victim to kick off a ladder or a stool that caused suffocation till death (Schabas 61). Long drop was also used as a method of execution where the victims were dropped down a longer distance in order to dislocate the neck and the spinal cord. In the United States the use of an electric chair or the lethal injection is considered to be a more humanitarian method of execution up to date (Schabas 64).
Death penalty should be legalized
Death penalty acts as a deterrent measure in eradicating crime. It is also evident that the consequences of the death penalty are irreversible and it also gives the society assurance and confidence that these serial criminals are eliminated from the society (Bedau et al 72). In this case the principle of retaliation and retributive justice supersedes the feeling of compassion for the wrong doer. This is to mean the punishment that should be inflicted to the criminals should keep up a correspondence with the degree of offense that the criminal has committed. It can also mean a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye (Bedau et al 75).
The act of deterrence is to mean that somebody is used as an example to others and instill fear in them (Kronenwetter 49). This is to show them that if they carry out the same crime similar punishment awaits them. Death penalty is one of those punishments that are used to instill fear in to any sane human being (Kronenwetter 51). According to some experts in criminal justice, people avoid being involved in some dangerous activities due to preconscious fears. All human beings fear death and therefore most criminals would avoid capital crimes if they knew that their lives would be at stake despite the fact that there is statistical evidence that capital punishment discourages crime (Kronenwetter 55).
With an assumption that there was no capital punishment in any state and the maximum form, of punishment is life imprisonment without parole; would there be anything that would stop a criminal facing life imprisonment from committing another crime while in prison? It is evident that prisons in the United States have an increased rate of assaults between inmates and also against prison wardens (Bedau et al 81). This shows that life imprisonment does not stop criminals from carrying out criminal activities even while in prison. Psychological experts state that such convicts facing life imprisonment have lost hope since they view their entire life behind bars and therefore do not care about anything (Bedau et al 83). Advocates who are against the legalization of capital punishment state that extreme measures such as killing victims should not be taken as a measure of reducing crime (Bedau et al 95). They state that crime can be reduced by ensuring that people out there are frightened of being arrested, convicted and punished for crime. Regrettably, the ever increasing population in the prison confirms the opposite. Imprisonment is not enough to stop the increasing rate of crime from all around the globe. It is possible for some criminals to think that they can get away with crime especially the serial offenders; capital punishment should be legalized in order to ensure that such criminals know that when they are caught they will face serious consequences.
Advocates against death penalty often argue that this form of punishment is irreversible which is true (DeMatteo 101). The argument lies in the case where an innocent person faces capital punishment and the real convict is left out there to live. This is true but it is also evident that the chance of convicting an innocent person is extremely low. This is because, before the jury comes to pass such judgment research has been carried out to a point that the victim pledges guilty of the offense (DeMatteo 121). It is also clear that there are several rights that the victim to face capital punishment has; a person is not liable for death penalty until they have been proved guilty leaving no chances for explanation of facts and also the person facing death sentence is allowed to appeal to a higher court (Schabas 83). This leaves no room for convicting the wrong or an innocent person. It is critical to note that trials are fair and just especially when the life of an individual is at stake. Statistics also show that the numbers of people who face capital sentence are fewer than the people facing imprisonment (Schabas 89). The judicial system has completely reduced the occurrence of mistake and currently it is almost impossible to convict an innocent person (Schabas 91).
As discussed above, death penalty should not be accorded to al criminals. Defendants in the case of murder issues are given the opportunity of protect themselves from facing justice by pleading to be insane (DeMatteo 151). This means that the individual is not able to respond to incentives like a normal human being. It is evident that since insane human beings are not responsible for their actions then there is no need to have then in the society because they do not add value in any way (DeMatteo 156). This then shows that death penalty should be accorded to them. An example is that of a mentally retarded person who hardly knows who he is who murdered the mother and a daughter in the presence of a three year old boy. This was done after he had raped the two females and finally he sexually assaults the boy and leaves him to die. In court the person pleads insanity and is imprisoned for a number of years. The question is what would stop the man from performing the same type of crime and pleading insanity the next time? When will such insane people learn the repercussions of their activities? This clearly shows that death penalty would serve justice to them and the society as well. By this I do not mean that insane people should be subject to death for crime, but some pose great danger to the society and therefore eradication would be for the better good (DeMatteo 167).
However, death penalty should not be accorded for first time offenders. This is because no matter how cruel a person is, they are subject to change if they are interested (Kronenwetter 154). In this case I advocate for the death penalty for serial killers who have committed the crime more than once. This is to mean that the society should put up with some actions to a certain level; people who go around murdering others are not only a threat to the society; but a baggage to the nation as well (Kronenwetter 166).
Some people might think that the legalization of death penalty is cruel, brutal and barbarous; but if the people who lost a loved one due to someone who acted in a brutal and barbarous way then there would be an evidence on the importance of this form of punishment. One question that the people who oppose capital punishment should ask is, “what if the person that was raped or murdered was my loved one?”
Conclusion
We should understand that death penalty is not an act of revenge but rather is eliminating a life that has no value and worth to human beings. Death penalty acts as a favor and relief to the society since the threat of loss of more lives has been eliminated. This clearly explains the fact that death penalty should be made legal.
Work Cited
Bedau, Hugo A, and Paul G. Cassell. Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? : the Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2004. Print.
Schabas, William A. The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002. Print.
DeMatteo, David. Forensic Mental Health Assessments in Death Penalty Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
Stearman, Kaye. The Death Penalty. New York: Rosen Pub. Group's Rosen Central, 2007. Print.
Kronenwetter, Michael. Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2001. Print.
Garland, David. Peculiar Institution: America's Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010. Internet resource.
