Student’s Name
Institution
Tutor
Course
Date
The Death Penalty Sentence
The principle idea behind the death penalty was to put capital offenses in check. Almost every society imposed a certain form of capital punishment for criminal offenses. The most common form of executing this punishment was through hanging to death. The style was common in England. Some regimes, especially the French kingdom, used the guillotine. Presently, the most common forms of execution include the firing squad (Malaysia), hanging (Saudi Arabia), lethal injection (China) and the electric chair (USA) (Haines, 1994). In the USA alone, there have been 1421 executions since 1976 (Haines, 1994). This figure does not include the current inmates on death row. This piece of writing is an argumentative essay seeking to establish the case for and against the death penalty. It also offers a personal perspective at the end.
Relevance and Debate
The death penalty has been a subject for debate for quite a long time now. In the past, around the 18th Century, the subject was not contentious. It was morally acceptable that anybody who committed a criminal offense was liable for the death penalty. In some societies, it was common for petty food thieves to face the hangman’s noose. However, in the 20th Century, the number of people opposed to the punishment began to increase. The groups opened up the debate regarding the morality of the punishment. The same groups that were fighting against animal cruelty spoke against the punishment citing the cruelty of its execution. These concerns have led to major divisions regarding the issue. Some groups are against the punishment, while others are in support. Some people are indifferent about the subject and the rest claim they would change their view if we had an efficient judicial system.
The issue regarding the death penalty is relevant because it affects us all in one way or another. People have been executed in err and the process is racially skewed (Sunstein & Vermule, 2005). The issue is of great magnitude in that it may jeopardize the career of a politician. My interests in this issue lie in the fact that there has not been a concrete solution to the issue. Both warring parties have not come to a common ground. The issue is more serious because it has become politicized. Sly politicians are using the death penalty issue to gain political mileage.
Different Perspectives regarding the Issue
Supporters of the punishment claim that it serves to uphold morality (Zeisel & Gallup, 2009). Acts of rape, murder, treason, kidnapping and torture are a sign of moral decay. If the authorities left such acts to go unpunished, the whole world would fall into a state of anarchy. The penalty also holds everyone accountable for his or her actions. The writers argue that human beings, unlike animals, have the ability to control their actions. According to Zeisel and Gallup 2009), a human being is a moral element that is free and able to control his or her destiny for the bad intents or good intentions. People who engage in criminal activities do so with the full knowledge of the consequences. It would therefore be wrong to let them go scot-free, for the actions they did with full knowledge of the consequences of their actions and the moral implications.
The death penalty is a deterrent from murder and other capital offenses. As Lu and Terrence (2007) write, everybody fears death more than anything. Even the stone- cold murders fear the same fate for them. It is for this reason that many inmates who receive a death sentence, fight so hard for it to be reverted to a life sentence. Since many prefer the life sentence, it implies that it is not stringent enough to deter murderers, serial killers and rapists. These individuals must be executed if that is what it takes to keep the society safe.
The death penalty upholds the concept of retribution in the society (Haines, 1994). In line with this school of thought, society is justly organized such that everybody receives what is due to him. Those that do good receive payment in the form of freedom while those that do bad get similar consequences (Kramer, 2014). Although life is not fair, authorities should try to uphold this concept. People who commit murder should receive their reward by facing execution because that is what they deserve. The penalty functions to keep the society just and make everybody accountable for his or her actions.
On the other hand, pro-abolitionists argue differently. According to abolitionists, it is morally wrong to take any life- whether deserved or not. According to cook (1998), the government is not better than the murderers if it engages in the same acts that led to their conviction. “Nobody or organization has the mandate to take a life in whatever circumstances”, (p.7). Religious leaders echo his sentiments in their opinion of the death sentence. Even though it was religion that instituted the death penalty during the medieval times, today’s religious leaders claim that the act of giving and taking life should be left to God.
The death penalty is not a deterrence of capital crimes. According to Cook (1998), states that have maintained the punishment do not experience lower levels of crime. Besides, states that have abolished the sentence have not seen an increase in the level of capital offenses. As the writer says, there is no tangible evidence to prove that capital punishment deters crime. Even in history when countries had the cruelest forms of executing the death sentence, some people still committed capital offenses (Kramer, 2014). The death penalty does not deter future criminals from committing capital offenses.
The death penalty is irrevocable and therefore incapable of correcting mistakes during the passing of judgment. According to Lu and Terrence (2007), 87 people have been rescued from death row because the judiciary found in time that they were innocent. The 87 people would have faced the penalty had the new evidence not popped up. The question of how many innocents have been mistakenly executed cannot go unasked. The judiciary is not 100% efficient and therefore mistakes are bound to happen.
Most of the death penalties are biased on the basis of race, gender, and the socio- economic class (Lu & Terrence, 2007). Research shows that Hispanics and African Americans have a higher probability of receiving the death penalty than any other Americans. The same applies to rich people. The chances of a rich person walking free from a murder trial are quite high when compared to those of a poor suspect. The rich can also higher good defense attorneys to argue their case. Past research has also proven that the skills and experience of a defense attorney greatly contribute to the outcome of a murder trial (Kramer, 2014). Murderers with enough money to hire a good defense attorney are likely to walk free or receive a lenient sentence.
Overall Opinion
The death penalty should be abolished because it is cruel and immoral. As the Cliché goes, two wrongs do not make a right. It is wrong to commit a capital offense the same way it is wrong for the government to take away a life that it did not commit in the first stance. The government has no moral authority to take away the life of a human being or any creature for that matter. Since the authorities are a moral institution, their actions should be better than those of the convicted criminals.
The death penalty is a violation of a basic human right- the right to life. It is true that the convicted criminals have taken a life, but then they are still entitled to basic human rights in their own capacity as human beings. When the government decides to safeguard some rights and violate others, it sends mixed signals to the citizens.
Until our judiciary is 100% efficient and free of bias, the death penalty should be put on hold. Same as any other arm of the government, the judiciary is susceptible to corruption. Influential people in the government will never receive the life sentence. In this regard, it means that capital sentence is reserved for the poor and the less influential. Therefore, the death penalty does not have a place in any civilized society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate about the death penalty rages on. The pro death activists claim that the sentence is a deterrent to crime, enhances morality and makes everyone accountable for their own actions. The opposing side claims that the sentence is cruel, the judicial process is skewed, a lot of racism and classicism take center stage, and it depends on the skills of the defense attorney. As a personal opinion, the death penalty should be abolished in any modern society.
References
Cook, K..J., (1998). Divided Passions: Public Opinions on Abortion and the Death Penalty. Boston; North Eastern University Press
Haines, H. (1996). Against Capital Punishment: The Anti-Death Penalty Movement in America, 1972-1994. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kramer, M. (2014). The Ethics of Capital Punishment: A Philosophical Investigation of Evil and Its Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Lu, H., Terrance M., (2007) China’sdeath penalty: History, Law and contemporary practices. New York: Routledge.
Sunstein, C.R., Vermeule, A., (2005).Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs. Social Science Research Network: 27(7).
Zeisel, H., Gallup M.A., (2009). Death penalty sentiment in the United States. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 5(3): 285-296