The death penalty is a controversial subject, both because of its moral implications and because of its controversial effectiveness. The death penalty is mainly applied to those convicted of intentional homicide (s). It is obvious that this policy aims to make these convicts examples to deter murder. But is it really effective? Is it morally justifiable?
According to my opinion, death penalty should be abolished because of various reasons. To start with, the most detrimental facet of it is the ideology of irreversibility. Once the judgment on death penalty has been passed, it can never get reversed and this often result in innocent people paying for crimes they did not commit. This expounds more on the loopholes evident in most justice systems because no matter how advanced a justice system is, it will always remain susceptible to human error (Canes-Wrone, Clark & Kelly, 2014). For instance, Cameron Todd Willingham from Texas was executed in 2004 with an allegation that he set a fire that culminated in the death of his three daughters. After getting executed, extensive investigations later revealed that Willingham did not burn his daughters, but this came too late. Notably, there is no predetermined condition that death penalty deters crime effectively than a prison term because no credible evidence has been established initially (Van den Haag & Conrad, 2013). Instead, it goes beyond human rights and dignity through violation of the right to life which is the most basic tenet among all human rights. Based on this incompatibility, the idea violates the right of not getting subjected to torture or other forms of inhumane treatment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In case someone I know is falsely accused of a crime, my opinion regarding the support for death penalty would change because there is no any acknowledged humane way of executing murder on the accused. All the methods of execution such as hanging, beheading or shooting are brutal and there is the likelihood that the nature of such deaths will continue perpetuating the cycle of violence around the world and may not serve to alleviate the pain suffered by the deceased’s next of kin (Van den Haag & Conrad, 2013). However, if someone I know is violently attacked and murdered, the scenario won’t alter my opposition towards death penalty. The reason behind this is that, despite the desire for justice, it is not prudent executing someone’s life for murder since that amounts to revenge, not justice. Additionally, the family members of the deceased have the right to see the culprit held to account in a fair trial without recourse to the death penalty.
For those supporting death penalty as a way of preventing potential crimes, I want to challenge them by saying that death penalty is not the only method that can deter crime. Preventive and purgative goals could be met by, among other things, life imprisonment. The fact that there are recidivism certainly shows a flaw in the system, but a loophole that could be filled by a smarter application of the prison sentence. Indeed, we can also see the prison as a place that serves to protect the population from criminals (prison as isolation), and / or a place to punish them for their crime (prison as a negative reinforcement and dissuasive objective) and / or as a place to re-educate them to reintegrate them later (educational prison). In short, beyond ethics, it is the deterrent effectiveness that really distinguishes the death penalty from prison and should be considered decisive argument, in addition to ethics and morality.
References
Canes-Wrone, B., Clark, T. S., & Kelly, J. P. (2014). Judicial selection and death penalty decisions. American Political Science Review , 108 (1), 23-39.
Van den Haag, E., & Conrad, J. P. (2013). The death penalty: A debate . Springer Science & Business Media.
