When it comes to arguments on the death penalty, some people are in favor of it while the rest are against it. Those who think capital punishment should not be abolished want an eye for an eye.
They believe if a person commits a heinous crime like killing someone, the only punishment for the perpetrator of the crime is to take his life.
Such kind of punishment is often demanded by those who are close to the victim though not always.
Others have moral and religious obligations in respect of death punishment as according to them, taking the life of anyone, no matter how gruesome a crime he has committed, cannot be justified.
Arguments against Capital Punishment
The problem with most people is they fail to understand that the death penalty often costs a wrongdoer more than his life. Almost a line of appeals, legal procedures, etc drag the case, and that makes many prisoners who are sentenced to death suffer for 10-15 years or more in jail.
They also argue that by awarding death to an at-fault person, a court can never send the message that killing someone is a crime because it is doing the same wrong thing.
Another ground of argument they offer is capital punishment is the easiest one to serve for a prisoner. Many are of the view that life in prison is worse as suffering lingers for a long time rather than having it ended immediately.
Last but not least, there is the horrifying possibility that an innocent may be put to death. It cannot be expected that the courts will always be right and after the person is hanged till death, there is no chance to bring him back to life.
Arguments in Favor of Capital Punishment
People who want the death penalty to be sustained often argue that every system of justice is based on a fundamental principle that punishment must fit the nature of the crime and also the extent of its cruelty.
So capital punishment is defensible if someone has perpetrated a crime or is involved in such an activity that has caused grave damage to the victim and that must not be confused with the kind of revenge that justifies killing someone in return.
If these culprits are imprisoned, someday they may escape or may be released on parole and there is a chance that they will kill again.
Even they may kill another prisoner who is serving a sentence for a less atrocious crime. So the best is to remove them to ensure safety for the society.
It is only the justice system that can reduce the chance that they will kill again by handing the death penalty to them.
The Verdict
There is no doubt that the death penalty has its own set of pros and cons. And most surprisingly, most of the pros can be argued as cons and vice versa. Furthermore, technology has improved so much over the years that some of the strongest arguments against death punishment have become less important.
For example, the argument of mistakes and an innocent being punished is no longer strongly valid as there is less chance of errors nowadays with advanced DNA processing.
Fear is a psychological phenomenon inherent in everyone and it is true for even those who take the life of someone. So allowing them to live in the mainstream society leaves others’ lives at risk. The death penalty is the most effective sentence that can deter them from committing further crimes.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding the death penalty remains deeply polarized, with proponents arguing for its necessity as a deterrent against heinous crimes, while opponents raise moral, ethical, and practical concerns.
While supporters advocate for an eye-for-an-eye approach and believe in the principle of punishment fitting the crime, opponents highlight the potential for wrongful convictions, the prolonged suffering of prisoners awaiting execution, and the moral ambiguity of state-sanctioned killing.
Despite advancements in technology that have reduced the likelihood of erroneous convictions, the fundamental ethical dilemma of whether the state should have the power to take a life remains unresolved.
Furthermore, the death penalty's effectiveness as a deterrent is still a subject of debate, with some arguing that life imprisonment serves as a more severe and lasting punishment.
Ultimately, the decision on whether to retain or abolish the death penalty requires careful consideration of its societal implications, moral implications, and effectiveness in achieving justice.
As society continues to evolve and debates on criminal justice reform persist, finding a balanced approach that upholds both the principles of justice and human rights remains a significant challenge.
Of the three people being executed today, I don't believe any actually denied committing the crime, so the "got the wrong man" argument doesn't really work.
ReplyDelete