CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED

 For centuries, capital punishment has existed, yet questions on its justifications have been raised over time. Even though capital punishment was seen as necessary in dealing with crimes that were seen as having grave implications on the society, the question as to whether one should have the right to take away one’s life over crime has made this a major judicial policy debate. More than ever, the modern day society has seen more and more nations doing away with capital punishment, yet a number of countries still hold on to its inclusion in their penal code. For such countries, there are reasons to support the implementation of capital punishment, even with the detriments that can be attributed to this penalty. Prominent judges have also called death penalty to be abolished since it has barely beneficial. In the words of Retire Justice Stevens, he called for its abolishment due to “the risks of executing the innocent, its high costs relative to its questionable benefits, and the lengthy time defendants spend on death row” (Death Penalty Information Center n.d). Capital punishment should be abolished within the judicial systems as its application is against the principles of justice and the sanctity for life.

Capital punishment should be abolished as its overly contradictory when considered in light of the need for reform. The criminal justice system provides that every other person found to have committed crime ought to be subjected to a fair process (Moore, Sandys & Jayadev, 2015). In this case, a fair process would, in light of conviction, provide room for reform and or behavior change. Convicts are incarcerated in order to provide room for behavior change while serving their terms (Messner, Baumer & Rosenfeld, 2006). Whereas this ought to be the case for all the other crimes, capital punishment does not provide room for behavior change. In order for one to have a chance to changing their behavior, they ought to be alive. The fact that capital punishment involves execution, the convict would have no chance to making the decision to change as they take responsibility for the crimes they may have committed (Messner, Baumer & Rosenfeld, 2006). For one to have a chance to reform, it would be better off to have life imprisonment for heinous and grave crimes than have a person executed. Doing so would amount to double standards in giving justice trio convicts. Simply put, the judicial policy and system would be unfair to such convicts when the ultimate intention of the judicial system has to be considered.  

Capital punishment should be abolished as in itself is more of a revenge penal measure more than it is a measure that should be used in bringing crime under control. The reasoning behind capital punishment is in such manner that revenge would stand out as justified (Messner, Baumer & Rosenfeld, 2006).  In this case, many of the countries that have embraced and or entrenched capital punishment in their supreme laws have specifically set it out for those that have committed murder. The fact that crimes of murder have been attached to execution or capital punishment in the penal code is clear indicator that this punishment is not meant to change but to do the same to those that have committed crimes under this penal code (Messner, Baumer & Rosenfeld, 2006). One would, therefore, have to ask the question as to whether it’s fair to only have a penal code that seeks revenge instead of standing out to the crimes committed and need to have significant change in the behavior of those that have been committed. If this is to be extended to other crimes, the cat of mob justice would also be justified. In essence, capital punishment does not go in line with the principles of justice and the need to have an effective alternative penalty to crimes committed. Moreover, there is no evidence that capital punishment has an effect in deterring crime especially murder. For instance, it has been observed that in United States, murder cases are more prevalent in those states where capital punishment is applied in the judicial process (Lamperti, 2008).

The question of sanctity to lie would definitely not stand in support of capital punishment. There is a need to look at capital punishment in the context of the sanctity to life and the importance of human life (Fieser, 2010). Unlike animals, human life is scared and should be treated as such. In this case, many of the supreme laws across the countries agree to this fact. The fact that the law would teat murder with the seriousness that is enshrined by the law is to demonstrate that life cannot be taken by another person, regardless of the circumstances. There is the justification to argue that capital punishment should never be included in the penal code since it amounts to contradicting all the laws on the human rights chapter that declare that human life is important. Even in cases where one has committed murder, it cannot be justified to argue that the gravity of the mistake would definitely needs a similar measure (Fieser, 2010). In any case, it would not make sense to kill in the name of stopping the killings. Dealing with a crime would never provide any justification for committing a similar crime as this would never be seen as the right measure to curing the crime.

Capital punishment ought to be abolished as it not only brings out the debate ion life and the sanctity of life, but creates a slippery slope to murder and disrespect for life. There is need for one to look at sanctity of life from an actions or policy perspective. One cannot argue that they do support the sanctity of life while at the same time stand in support of capital punishment (Fieser, 2010). In this case, the question of whether capital punishment is justifiable ought to be analyzed in terms of the implication of having the penal code provided for in the constitution. The fact that one would have legislation that supports murder is in itself a clear indication that sanctity to life is not well protected by the same law that claims to be doing so (Fieser, 2010). In this case, the thought of having a loved one, friend or relative executed would definitely create a sense of life not being too important or sanctified, as it should be. The resulting effect is that it could easily result to more harm than would help cure much of the grave crimes.

Conclusively, capital punishment should be abolished within the judicial systems as its application is against the principles of justice and the sanctity for life. Though those that commit many of the grave crimes out to be accountable for the crimes they have committed, this would never at any pint justify the inclusion of exception in the penal code. There is need for stakeholders to do evaluation of these. By doing away with the capital punishment provision, the law would be implemented effectively as it would do away with any kind of contradictions that would have existed before. This would be the only way out to ensuring the judicial processes are effective and that sanctity to life is respected no matter the circumstances. Even in cases where one has committed murder, it cannot be justified to argue that the gravity of the mistake would definitely needs a similar measure. In any case, it would not make sense to kill in the name of stopping the killings.

References