From a legal perspective, punishment is the deliberate infliction of suffering to an actual or supposed offender by a person of authority, such as a judge for a transgression. The intent of such an act is not to torment the offender or undo the crime but to prevent others from committing a similar offense and prevent the criminal from causing more harm. The type of punishment given depends on the nature of the crime, where the more the degree of the offense, the harsher the punishment. The greatest punishment a criminal can receive is the death penalty, which has been a controversial topic among many legal professionals and institutions. Most individuals who question the necessity of the death penalty argue that life imprisonment is more effective, except for warlords or rebel leaders, as they continue causing more harm from behind bars. For those who support it, they believe that the death penalty is necessary for instilling fear. The death penalty deters people from committing crimes. Every now and then, the stories of a serial killer hit the news where people are mesmerized and angered by the grotesque details of their acts, some of which get worse with each passing day. When such individuals are finally arrested and executed, everybody gets a sense of satisfaction. Some of the serial killers show no remorse at all, and thus people believe that their actions are so irredeemable that death is the only option (Ichinose, 2017). After all is said and done, the debate of the necessity of the death penalty picks up the pace again, with some of the previous supporters taking the high moral ground against it. This brings the question, is the death penalty really necessary in society? As of 2019, 103 countries in the world had abolished the death penalty, and only 54 were actively practicing it (Dieter, 2019). nonetheless, the death penalty should be part and parcel of any society for two reasons, retribution and deterrence. For retribution , the death penalty is viewed as a punishment well deserved in return for a crime. Most of the individuals sentenced to death are usually murderers who have killed several people. The punishment given is therefore deemed as proportionate for the offender, but not necessarily bringing a more considerable benefit for the society. After all, the crime has already been committed. This retribution theory is often associated with the eye for an eye justice, or Lex talionis, a Latin expression meaning the law of retaliation, where the crime for murder is death (Grace, 2018). With deterrence , the death penalty aims at discouraging others from committing similar crimes. By using the criminal as an example to the rest, the death penalty sends a crystal-clear message to the rest, and this will instill fear in them, making them deter from committing the crime. The justification behind the death penalty is the direct application of the punishment's retributive concept. The punishment is carried out as a belief that it is deserved for its own sake. However, advocates for this view do not present a concrete reason to support it. While this is the case, the death penalty is based on the very idea that every human being is worthy of respect due to their capability to make free and rational choices (Walsh & Hatch, 2018). Based on this argument, the penalty thus treats him the exact same way that they choose to treat other individuals. More often than not, people tend to hold criminals with low esteem and perceive them as worthless individuals who deserve no dignity or respect. Such a view, however, is wrong since every human has some degree of rationality. If an individual treats others in a certain way, they should not feel a type of way when such treatment is retaliated. Since murderers feel like it is okay to kill people, then it is only fair to pass the death penalty on them. Retributive punishment has some problems. For instance, it may lead to counterintuitive judgments on non-death penalty crimes. Borrowing from the eye for an eye theory, it would only mean that arsonists should have their houses burnt down and rapists raped as well. It thus leads to controversies and not guarantee an appropriate punishment. In the same way, the retributive part of the death penalty may be regarded as inadequate for mass murderers. For example, if a serial killer is responsible for about 20 deaths, executing him only eliminates one life. Comparing that life to the 20 that they killed may not feel as punishment enough. Even for a mass murderer in history like Hitler, his death did not feel as substantial enough, considering that his regime killed millions of people. Some individuals may be so bad and their crimes so grave that there can never be a way to balance the scales of justice retributively (Walsh & Hatch, 2018). However, the death penalty and the retributivism theory in general balance the scale of justice, and it is only in the worst criminals that it feels inefficient. When individuals commit serious crimes, they forfeit their right to life, and they may hence be prosecuted. This is a justification for the death penalty. The rights forfeiture theory was articulated by British Philosopher John Locke, who argued that human beings have the fundamental right to life, liberty, and health, but if a person violates another's fundamental rights, they forfeit their right to live (Wellman, 2020). However, Locke's theory has some weaknesses, for instance, vigilantism. If a criminal forfeits their right to life by killing someone, the theory demands that anyone can trace and execute them. This is, however, not possible in modern and civilized society as only the government through the judicial system has the power to give capital punishment. Consequently, a supporter of this theory should not believe in vigilantism but should let the relevant authorities carry out their work. The victim and their family are the only ones permitted to retaliate according to Locke's theory, but civilization demands them to relinquish such rights to the judiciary for justice to be served.
Conclusion
The death penalty deters people from committing crimes. The sole purpose of such capital punishment is to prevent people from repeating such crimes. Although the statement is true, numerous controversies are surrounding the death penalty. For instance, some individuals may feel that it violates the right to life, but when a mass murderer is brought to the books and executed, they see the necessity of the penalty. The main aim of capital punishment is retribution and deterrence. When it comes to retribution, an eye for an eye theory is used to justify capital punishment. However, they are some problems that supporters of the death penalty are often criticized for, which are the possibility of counterintuitive judgment and the inefficiency of the punishment in worse criminals. There are ethical issues, such as rights forfeiture, when it comes to capital punishment. The philosophy by John Locke permits everyone to retaliate every time an individual commits murder. While this is the case, civilization demands to let the appropriate authorities pass such judgment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Dieter, R. C. (2019). Introduction: International Perspectives on The Death Penalty. In Comparative Capital Punishment . Edward Elgar Publishing.
Grace, E. (2018). Lex Talionis In the Twenty-First Century: Revenge Ideation and Terrorism. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression , 10 (3), 249-263.
Ichinose, M. (2017). The Death Penalty Debate: Four Problems and New Philosophical Perspectives. Journal of Practical Ethics , 5 (1).
Walsh, A., & Hatch, V. L. (2018). Capital Punishment, Retribution, And Emotion: An Evolutionary Perspective. New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal , 21 (2), 267-290.
Wellman, C. H. (2020). Clarifying Forfeiture Theory in Response to Dempsey And Lang. Criminal Law and Philosophy , 1-8.
