Much debate continues in the US as to whether the death penalty constitutes an appropriate punishment, at least for the most heinous crimes. In recent years, the debate has been further fueled by the use of new technologies which have shown that a large proportion of people sentenced to death are, indeed, innocent (Human Rights). In this paper, I would like to discuss some of the pros and cons of the death penalty from a general perspective and then explain my own conclusions.
Arguments in Favor
The argument in favor of the death penalty is based on retribution and deterrence (Gregg, 124). Furthermore, there is also the question of whether death is proportionate as a punishment for a particular crime. Supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit vicious crimes destroy the basis on which a moral community rests and thereby forfeit their rights to citizenship and even to life itself. Protection of the innocent requires that criminals be isolated and removed, even permanently if necessary. Although retribution is not considered the main objective of capital punishment, it is not a forbidden objective. “Indeed, the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community’s belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death” (Gregg, 124).
Advocates of capital punishment contend that the ultimate penalty of death is necessary for the punishment of terrible crimes because it provides the most complete retribution and condemnation. Death penalty supporters believe that capital punishment does prevent more crime because death is so much more feared than mere restrictions on one’s liberty. Statistics regarding whether the death penalty does act as deterrence have been inconclusive. “There is no convincing empirical evidence either supporting or refuting this view” (Gregg, 124). However, it is assumed that the threat of death could influence someone to think twice before committing a serious crime.
The Justices in the Gregg vs. Georgia case stated that “the moral consensus concerning the death penalty and its social utility as a sanction, require us to conclude, in the absence of more convincing evidence, that the infliction of death as a punishment for murder is not without justification and thus is not unconstitutionally severe” (Gregg, 124).
Arguments Against
The most compelling arguments against capital punishment are the risk of killing an innocent person, disproportionate infliction on the poor and minorities, weakness of the deterrence argument, the issue of race being a detrimental factor in determining who is sentenced to death, and executions being a greater cost than life imprisonment (Death Penalty). Life imprisonment without parole serves the same purpose as capital punishment at less cost without the practical disadvantages and injustices of its actual practice. Is it really logical to punish someone for the crime of murder by murdering him? “Justice of this kind is obviously no less shocking than the crime itself, and the new ‘official’ murder, far from offering redress for the offense committed against society, adds instead a second defilement to the first” (Gregg, 126).
Another argument against the death penalty is world opinion. According to Amnesty International, an organization dedicated to promoting human rights, “the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.” When Amnesty International met in 1977 there were only sixteen countries that had done away with the death penalty. As of 2003 that number has risen to seventy-five (Amnesty International).
According to the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty,
The death penalty means the triumph of vengeance over justice and violates the first right of any human being, the right to life. Capital punishment has never prevented crime. It is an act of torture and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. A society that imposes the death penalty symbolically encourages violence. Every single society that respects the dignity of its people has to strive to abolish capital punishment. (World Coalition)
Conclusion
In principle, a case can be made for and against capital punishment. Many people feel that killing convicted murderers will satisfy their need for justice and/or vengeance; that certain crimes are so heinous that executing the criminal is the only reasonable response; that once a convicted murder is executed and buried, there are no further maintenance costs to the state; and, that once a convicted murderer is executed, there is no chance that he will break out of jail and kill or injure someone. The argument in favor is based on justice and the nature of a moral community, which requires that each person respect the life and liberty of others. Those who commit vicious crimes destroy the basis on which a moral community rests and forfeit their rights to citizenship and even to life itself.
The argument against is based on love and the nature of an ideal community in which forgiveness and the hope for redemption are guiding aims. Executing a person kills him before the time of their natural death. Human life has intrinsic value, even if a person has murdered another individual. The death penalty denies the sacredness of human life. Life is so precious that nobody should ever be killed, even by the state. Protection of the innocent requires that criminals be isolated, perhaps permanently. Just punishment is appropriate, but love never gives up even on those who show no love. Killing a murderer does not bring his victim back to life. It achieves nothing but the death of still another person. Corporal punishment, such as flogging, and extreme types of capital punishment, such as burning at the stake, are no longer accepted practices because of their indignity (Ontario). By the same reasoning, capital punishment should be abolished too.
To go back to the beginning of this paper, I have to ask, why is capital punishment so abhorrent to the majority of people? Is not this also an indication that it is not natural? Does witnessing the execution of a convicted murderer really bring any type of closure? I would say not because it is more likely than not feeding into an attitude of revenge. Furthermore, I personally think no one should have the job of ending someone’s life. Elie Wiesel said, “I do not believe any civilized society should be at the service of death. I don’t think it is human to become an agent of the Angel of Death” ().
Bibliography
Amnesty International .
Arthur, John. Morality and Moral Controversies. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall,
2002.
Claretian Publications <http://www.claretianpubs.org>.
Death Penalty Information Center <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org>.
Human Rights <http://www.derechos.org/dp>.
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance Copyright © 1995 to 2002 <>.
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty <http://www.worldcoalition.org/bcoal07com.html>.
![Read the facts of Moloney [1985] AC 905. Applying the law as it stands today to the facts in Moloney, would he be convicted of murder or manslaughter if his defence were believed?](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/935187/listing/935187_1.jpg)
