Introduction
Capital punishment or death sentence is a kind of punishment executed on an individual as a result of committing a serious crime like murder, treason, armed robbery or war crimes. For several years, there have been arguments concerning this kind of punishment as to either to abolish it or not. Those supporting believe that it is the surest way of deterring more crimes from being committed. They even support by quoting biblical verses, “whoever shades man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God, He made man” (New International Version, Gen 9.6). Individuals who oppose death penalty believe that death penalty can never be deterrence to further crimes and another mechanism like long-term imprisonment should be applied as an alternative.
Support for Capital Punishment
The capital punishment will work as a deterrent to prevent those criminals who had an intention of pursuing a crime from doing it. Since they already know the severe consequences, people will fear to fall into any offense that will finally land being guilty of breaking such a law. The society will be safe if the death penalty is heightened. Capital punishment also helps a nation in reducing the crime rates (Connors and Thomson Gale (Firm) 36). A jurisprudence professor at Fordham University by the name Ernest Van den Haag researched the deterrence question. The researcher suggested that the death penalty has a propensity of discouraging severe criminal acts as compared with other punishments like imprisonments (Van 34). People value their lives most that if there is any provision in the law that requires their lives be taken for being guilty of a particular offense, they will try as much as possible not to break it. Carrying out the death penalty in an open place where people will witness the pain and agony the victim goes through will instill in them a lot of fear hence warning them against committing murder (Barzun 99).
Opposition to Capital Punishment
However, capital punishment may not be an effective way of preventing future criminals. From the outcomes of deterrence studies, capital punishment is less of a deterrence than life imprisonment. The death penalty is inhuman as it is not seen as a way of preventing further crimes, but instead, it ignites. The findings from William Bowers, a criminologist from Northeastern University revealed so. Even in the United States of America, it was discovered that the crime rates were higher in states in which death penalty is being used than those which abolished it. Those who commit murder do it not aware of any possibility of being found in the act hence the sentence is not a deterrent as opposed to what the law implementers wished. Even the law enforcers in the countries supporting such kind of punishment do suffer through assaults and homicides than the officers from other nations not supporting (Connors and Thomson Gale (Firm) 39).
Costs and Resources
Furthermore, capital punishment prevents the government from incurring a lot of costs and resources in taking care of imprisoners. The government will instead use such money in funding other projects like donating food to those suffering from hunger, caring for the old and equipping hospitals for the betterment of the sick. Executing criminals for long-term imprisonment will be costly to the government and taxpayers who will have to bear the ultimate burden of providing for them through taxation. In the United States of America, before the penalty is executed, there are several appeals of over twelve years being allowed as opposed to Britain where the average amount of time that was recognized for a criminal to stay in the cell was between three and eight weeks. Only one chance of appealing was provided for in the constitution. As a result, the British government used to spend little on the victim of crime as compared to what was spent in the US.
Humanity and Justice
The death penalty is the worst form of punishment to be employed on an individual (Martin 22). It takes away an individual’s humanity and a chance of undergoing being reformed. At times innocent souls fall into the trap of such an awful punishment, and there is no possible chance of getting justice. Since the people who carry out prosecution are the judges who may not be well aware of the actual cause of the murder, they may convict an individual of a wrong crime for example murder when it was manslaughter. The families of the individuals convicted of crimes together with their friends often undergo stressful moments when the case is being heard in the court of law and more so while being executed. They find it difficult to believe that their own is guilty of committing a crime of high magnitude to a level death penalty. They find it more painful to realize that their loved one is going to die any moment and will be no longer see each other forever (Martin 25). The criminal undergoes psychological torture knowing that he will be facing the pain of death any moment.
Retribution and Fairness
Another argument for capital punishment is its retribution nature. Criminals deserve being punished depending on the intensity of the crime they committed without taking into considerations anyone’s desires. Anyone who is found guilty of an offense which meets death penalty should face it. Pojman and Van den Haal believe that retributivism will work in protecting the social order and eliminating the chances of vigilante justice (Van 42). Pojman reiterated that the punishment needs to be expanded to reach even those business people who extort the public thus committing a more serious offense than murder.
Conclusion
Taking someone’s life should be considered as the best tool for punishing the wrongdoers. A society which has matured needs to measure any reaction to an offense rather than causing any harm to the one who has done you any form of mistake. Vengeance should not be a priority to petition a death penalty whenever we are emotional. Our legal system should discourage such a punitive kind of punishment and instead embrace the principle of respect for life, and be applied to all even the murderers. Traditional beliefs too do not support the idea of tit for tat or an eye for an eye. Moreover, since capital punishment is never fairly applied equally to all persons, it should be abolished altogether. The extent of punishment is usually based on the individual’s race (Martin 32). Studies have shown that the penalty is subjected more so if a white is killed as opposed to a black person. They value the lives of the whites than blacks which should not be the case.
Call to Retain Capital Punishment
In conclusion, capital punishment should never be abolished by any state or nation. For the sake of peace and the security of the citizens, the lawmakers should strive to tighten the nuts instead of removing such a provision in the constitution. What they only need to do is to apply it equally to all races without fear or favor. Whenever such a law is in place, people will fear being the victims of breaking it, and the society and the nation at large will be safe.
Works Cited
Barzun, J. "In Favor of Capital Punishment." Capital Punishment, pp. 89-101, doi:10.4324/9781315081809-8.
Connors, P. G., and Thomson Gale (Firm). Capital punishment. Greenhaven Press, 2007.
Martin, M. "Campaign to End the Death Penalty." Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice, doi:10.4135/9781412956215.n155.
Van, Den H. E. Deterring Potential Criminals. Social Affairs Unit, 1985.
