If a person commits a criminal offense, he or she faces the death penalty. For a long time, many states used the death penalty to punish criminals for minor offenses by stoning, impaling, drowning, or crucifixion (Collier 1). However, in recent decades, the topic has caused controversy, with some individuals opposing the use of the death penalty. More than 80 states across the country have repealed capital punishment laws, arguing that it is unsuccessful in fighting crime. Various researchers have claimed that death penalty practices play an important part in crime control and prevention (Prejean 14). Although opposing views exist on capital punishment, it is important because it prevents criminality, safeguards the innocent people, and ensure adherence of law and order.
The death punishment is an ethically justified procedure that adapts to the today’s world (Prejean 14). It becomes a manifestation of the moral outrage of the society towards the violent behaviours. Moreover, there is ethical justification to introduce death penalties to people who kill others. For this reason, the death penalty becomes an essential tool in the event of serious offences such as murder because it is immoral to allow the murderer exist after killing another person (Collier 2). On the other hand, it is ethically unacceptable to imprison an offender who has committed murder. Imprisonment does not really ensure that the offender pay for his deeds without surrendering his/her own life. Significantly, the loss of liberty in prison cannot be equated to a forfeiture of life (Seal 20). Therefore, murder crimes can only be effectively punished through the capital penalty since it morally acceptable to do so.
Most importantly, the death penalty is a vital measure in the criminal judicial system because it helps to prevent emerging criminality in the contemporary world. Statistics from countries that maintain capital punishment for offenders indicates that it plays an important part in minimizing the number of wrongdoing in these nations. In this regard, it is effective in deterrence because criminals are less likely to participate in offences since they can suffer from total capital sentence. In addition, it contributes to reducing the number of murder cases in the country (Shatz and Shatz 15). For this reason, the process is beneficial as it helps to sustain the law and order in the whole world.
More importantly, death penalty is advantageous since it assists in preventing possible crimes (Shatz and Shatz 16). The severity of the punishment is the strongest purpose why potential offenders rethink prior to engaging in criminality. Moreover, criminals are more likely to consider the harshness of penalty, which also increases their chances of being caught. Similarly, a potential wrongdoer may decide not to participate in crime because of the kind of repercussions that he/she is likely to face once apprehended by the law officer. In most cases, criminals are less likely to engage in crime if the penalty for their misconduct is ultimate death, relative to a point in which the penalty is an imprisonment with parole. Persons who commit atrocious crimes are more liable as compared to those who engage in petty offences. On the contrary, when the criminal justice system fails to execute persons who have committed heinous act of violence, it will encourage more to harm other guiltless people. When crimes of this magnitude are more prevalent and common, more people begin to develop fear for their future and their lives. At this level it signifies a matter that the authority cannot allow and should deal with it with the seriousness it deserve. In this way, capital punishment plays a major part in keeping away potential wrongdoers from committing serious crimes (Seal 21).
Another key issue of capital punishment is the fact that it enables individuals to adhere to legal provisions in the society. Across the world, they are regulations that are enacted as the indicators in their growth process (Prejean 15). In this respect, when a person is unable to adhere to the regulations, she or he endangers the value of life of the whole society. For instance, when murderers kill people in the society, their actions are contrary to the values of the society, hence the significance of reducing their values of life too. It is evident that the victim’s life is more fundamental as compared to that of the wrong doer. Therefore, the death penalty is a demonstration that nations pursuing it have their regulations and laws that requires to be adhered to (Collier 5).
Furthermore, the death penalty helps to minimize the number of incarcerated individuals having grievous criminal history (Seal 13). The imprisonment process does not effectively deal with criminals because of the high rate of congestion in jails. Research has highlighted that no benefit of keeping persons who have done cruel crimes via murdering innocent people, remaining in jail or dodge the actual judgement via parole. In this way, the murderers must be subjected to the death penalty in order to provide an opportunity to handle petty crimes (Shatz and Shatz 21). Moreover, the prison services are presently sympathetic to these people because they provide adequate shelter and food. In some instance, prisoners are granted more freedom such as owning mobile phones (Prejean 17). Therefore, it is not justifiable to keep people who have killed innocent citizens in prison because it represents lack of concern to the life of human beings.
Capital punishment must be supported because it minimizes the expenses and costs of operating the prison. For instance, a person in prison spends more than $50,000 per year (Shatz and Shatz 25). Therefore, resources could otherwise be used in constructive issues in the country such as funding public health and education. Persons arrested engaging in capital offences must face the death penalty to reduce the cost of operating prisons. Instead, the resources saved should be used in the process of developing the country’s economy (Prejean 17). The death penalty is also important because it promotes the safety of other inmates or prisoners. Individuals who engage in murder are more likely to be violent as compared to other inmates. Similarly, they can be a threat to other prisoners, especially in volatile events. For this reason, it is crucial to isolate them from other prisoners (Collier 9). Various studies have pointed out that persons who commit murder are more likely to suffer from depression because of the issues that follow them. Consequently, they become a major threat to persons around them and their lives. For this reason, it would be advantageous in eliminating criminals with heinous capital crimes via the capital punishment (Steiker and Garland 21).
Some people suggest that death penalty will not recall the dead victim; hence, by hanging the rapist or terrorist, it will neither invalidate the mental and physical torture that the victim had suffered (Shatz and Shatz 19). However, this kind of argument can be used in all the other punishments. Therefore, by eliminating the capital punishment, the offenders are permitted to live freely in the society. In fact, no penalty has succeeded to correct an offence that has already been done to a victim. The sorrow of a victim cannot be reversed. Notably, the objective of the penalty is not to reverse the sorrows of the victim either (Collier 10). The aim of penalty, including death penalty is to avert a certain criminal from engaging in similar crimes in the future. Therefore, it should be used because it ensures that criminals do not repeat their wrongdoing in the future. Indeed, death penalty ensures that the offenders are completely alienated from the community; hence, there will be no parole that can assist them out of jail (Usman 5). Currently, the world is witnessing most of the released prisoners constantly participating in criminal activities. Therefore, capital punishment is effective because it ensures that such people will never have an opportunity to return to the community and turn out to be a major security menace of the society (Seal 13). In so doing, capital punishment eliminates the ambiguity of benefits, which are associated with the imprisonment.
The death sentence is very beneficial in the society because it assists in safeguarding the innocent people from attack by criminals (Collier 17). The authority to punish via appropriate judicial process is permitted in a democratic country aiming to safeguard the rights of the innocents. Capital punishment is applicable in order to uphold social order and control offenders from establishing anarchy or chaos. Moreover, capital punishment is effective in eliminating the worst wrongdoers from a particular country. For this reason, it provides more permanent and long-term security in the society as compared to imprisonment (Usman 7). Similarly, dead offenders cannot engage in any other offences, especially in the prison or after running away or following parole. Therefore, the use of capital punishment is a successful method of preventing certain wrongdoers from participating in wrongdoings in the future. Death penalty also helps the state to introduce an effective punishment instead of certain kinds of rehabilitative treatment (Prejean 23). In fact, it ensures that the wrongdoers get punishment, which is equivalent to his/her offence. In this way, death penalty achieves retribution hence it is a suitable method in the country.
Nonetheless, critics of capital punishment provide a wide range of reasons why it should not be implemented (Steiker and Garland 10). For instance, they suggest that it is a ruthless act and demonstrate less significance for human dignity and life. In addition, they claim that the death penalty does not assist in minimizing the rate of crime in the society. Similarly, many opponents of this method imply that it does create deterrence in the country and innocent individuals may suffer from it. In fact, opponents of capital punishment are mistaken, even as they attempt to provide records for the cost of the death penalty process. Additionally, most of the human right crusaders consider capital punishment as an abuse of the right to life of all human beings. Conversely, the death penalty respects the victim’s life as compared to the murderer’s life because he/she is a significant threat to all people in the community (Collier 9). Actually, the death penalty is not an abuse of the right to life of a person, but an effort to eliminate those offenders, who engages in capital offences. In addition, it helps to solve the problem of re-offending among people who continue to engage in capital crimes when they are released into their communities (Seal 15). Opponents also imply that capital punishment cannot repay the wrongs done by the murderers. In addition, they argue that the judicial system and the government have no moral authority to terminate the life of other people (Steiker and Garland 10).
The death penalty is of significant importance to societies that utilize it in their jurisdictions. The advantageous part of this form of punishment revolves around the ethical insights of action. It is ethically acceptable to kill individuals who assassinate other guiltless individuals (Prejean 14). In terms of the cost issue, capital punishment is justifiable because it reduces expenses needed during the process of imprisonment since it utilizes minimal cost. Furthermore, the death penalty will help in deterring criminal activities in the country because the majority of individuals will be afraid to engage in capital offences (Collier 1). For these reasons, the death penalty plays an essential part in the control as well as prevention of criminality and capital offences in the country (Usman 5). Explicitly, the use of capital punishment as a sentence will help to promote order in the society.
Collier, Linda J. “Adult Crime, Adult Time: Out-dated Juvenile Laws Thwart Justice.” Washington Post vol. 29, 1998, pp. 1-10.
Prejean, Helen. Executions are too Costly-Morally. Open Questions: Readings for Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing. Ed. By Chris Anderson and Lex Runciman. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005, pp. 14-23.
Seal, Lizzie. Capital Punishment in Twentieth-Century Britain: Audience, Justice, Memory. Routledge, 2014, pp. 11-20.
Shatz, Steven F., and Shatz Naomi R.. “Chivalry is not Dead: Murder, Gender, and the Death Penalty.” Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just, vol. 27, 2012, p. 64.
Steiker, Carol S., and David Garland. “Capital Punishment and Contingency.” 2012, pp. 760-787.
Usman, Jeffrey Omar. “Capital Punishment, Cultural Competency, and Litigating Intellectual Disability.” 2012, pp. 5-7