Death penalty is one of the most controversial topics of this decade. There are many people who are pro and against the ideology and acts that bring forth very substantial reasoning. The most agreeable reason that people use is the fact that life is sacred and no one should be allowed to make a judgment that should result in ending. Most people who are pro it use the same line of thinking by stating that the perpetrators of the crime do not fully take into consideration of the situation they put the victim and his or her family in. In as much as taking a life is a deplorable and heinous crime, is it really worth the death penalty? This is what poses the moral dilemma. Should the death penalty be an available option to inflict punishment? Is a murder’s life any value? By implementing the penalty, doesn’t it contradict the notion of the value of human life? What are the impacts that the penalty has on the society at large? When the economic implications are reviewed, is the penalty still worth it? This paper explores the impacts that death penalty brings to the world at large. Individuals in a state who commit crimes such as murder, espionage, treason, genocide, and crimes against humanity are put in a death penalty regardless of its impacts to society and the penalty in the modern world.
An offender is considered eligible for the death penalty depending on the severity of their crimes. When it comes to murder, it depends on the on the degree they are charged and convicted with. First degree murders fitting the criteria of premeditation, killing children, willful, and killing using poison, among others, makes one eligible for the penalty (Galliher & Galliher 16). Other capital offenses such as mass killing, treason (betraying the government), and espionage are also punishable by death. These criminals are otherwise labeled as the most deserving of death.
Death penalty is very contradictory because it has a very heinous finality so there is no room to compensate for any injustice that might take place on the perpetrator’s end. There are statistics that show some of the death penalty cases are as a result of an illusory nature. Human beings do not function like computers therefore are susceptible to numerous errors. This can be clearly seen in the reports that have been noted in the US. There are reports that indicate in as much as the penalty is perceived to be broadly implement, it is in fact, not imposed on a regular basis. There have been constant declines over the past three decades. The list that apply to the capital offenses have expanded with time such that there is a clear criteria that the jury must use to establish who is more deserving of the penalty. A handful of offenders are being sent to the gallons meaning those selected are by means of arbitration, basically on a personal whim, or random choices (Anckar 9). This shows how unfair and faulty the system is for such a serious finality.
Figure 1: Depicts the Decline on Death Penalty over the Years
Given the different circumstances human beings are born into, the struggles each one faces are very different and vary depending on the resources available to them. The circumstances and environmental factors all play serious roles in shaping a person to become who they are. Even though, poverty and struggles cannot be used as excuses to justify the pain that offenders cause through capital punishment, they are dynamics to consider when looking at the gravity of death penalty (Johnson & Johnson 2-6). Most people, unfortunately, are exposed to circumstances that reconfigure their perception of the world reducing the once existing childhood innocence and replacing it with extreme lack of compassion and also lack of empathy. This, however, does not mean that they are not capable of being treated or rehabilitated. Most of the perpetrators are also psychologically challenged. With the criteria of determining the severity of the condition, it should be given a benefit of doubt. With all these presented factors, it therefore, goes to show that there should be other alternatives to death penalty. Other punishments, which are less severe and can be undone in case a mistake was made during the judicial procedures, should be considered. There are other punishments such as life in prison without parole. This would at least offer the offenders a worthwhile shot at being rehabilitated and maybe they can end up making something substantial off the remaining part of their lives. It would also create a more just system and in case an error was committed during trial, the offender can be acquitted with compensation. The same cannot be applied to death penalty since life cannot be restored.
Ivan Šimonovi´ articulates that no one wins when taking the victims’ experience holistically with regard to death penalty (Westervelt & Cook 96). The victims of death penalty are so many. Many people are affected including the family of the offender and in some cases even the family of the victims sometimes suffers. From a human rights perspective, victims should have a say on whether they approve it or not given that it directly affects the healing process by interrupting or preventing closure (Blocher 275-295). Not to mention, that some of the homicides that are committed happen within families meaning that the family suffers a double loss. They lose their loved ones through the death penalty and also through the homicide. More so, the ones who are sentenced yet they have children as young as below 10 years old. Children at that age do not have a grasp on the world and would find it very difficult to understand what is going on. Their interpretation of the world would be very cruel and might be another generation that grows up losing all sort of empathy they had once towards human kind. Death penalty puts a lot of innocent lives at risk. Wrongful prosecution is not a new thing in the world. It happens and in case one falls victim to the death penalty, there is no compensation or even minute redemption that can come from it. This should be enough to halt the whole idea given, in most cases; there is no 100 percent guarantee of the events that took place. The evidence might be damning but might also be misconstrued. In general, the impact of death penalty leaves a long trail of victims in the process. In as much as the offender causes a lot of harm, the family is an innocent unit that gets to suffer a lot also through the process. The fact that murder in general invokes a lot of retaliation and provokes fear will play a role in worsening the situation instead of fixing it.
Another major reason to abandon the death penalty is the outrageous amounts of money that goes into it. Unlike other court cases, a lot of money goes into conducting a trial for a murder case. It is especially proven undeserving when mid cases, there is declaration of mistrials or misconducts that will either dismiss the case or force the procedures to start all over again. The death penalty therefore has become a burden that all taxpayers must incur (Gius 200). This money would have gone into better things that would enhance the community and prevent such capital offenses from happening in the first place. For instance, the establishments of facilities that help addicts and alcoholics can go a long way given that most offenders are often using drugs that play a vital role in numbing their empathy and consciousness plus also distorts their ability to think straight forcing them into irrational killings. This especially applies to those who commit mass murders for no apparent reason other than recognition. The money can also be put in better use when it is used to improve the lives of the poor in the society that will result in not putting them in situations where they have to be in robbery with violence. In Oregon alone, an average of 2.3 million US Dollars was used to conduct 61 murder cases. Aggravated murder cases however cost way less with 300 cases costing around 1 million US Dollars. This goes to show just how much money is going into the cause. The charges are also escalating as time goes by because of the broadening of the criteria used in these cases. The need to hire the best defense team also adds to the charges. Most of the offenders are rarely able to hire a good defense team therefore the state appoints them and this results to more money from the taxpayers is used (Donohue & Wolfer 266). Which raises the question of is it really worth it?
Death penalty consequences are substantially worse in countries where there is poor quality of defense. Not many countries can afford to pump money into the legal procedures like the US or European countries. These other countries such as those in Africa are still struggling with the basic needs such as combating starvation. The same applies to the countries which are not adequately invested in the school systems. The consequence of that is that the professionals who are sent out to work in courts are not adequately equipped to deal with death cases proceedings. All these leads to the offenders not being given the adequate defense they require. When it comes to a matter of life and death, an offender should be given the best because life cannot be restored. A weak legal team means that even when the evidence is misconstrued, it will go unnoticed and the consequence of that is that wrongful conviction will occur. In areas such as the Arabian countries, capital punishment is done within minutes of accusation. This means that the offender is not given time to explain his or her side nor even given time to present facts that might prove his or her innocence of give the benefit of doubt. This just shows how the penalty in such cases has not been properly thought out. Adultery in some countries is punishable by death which makes one question about the severity of the crime to inflict such a punishment. Liberal mindedness, level of education, and poverty levels, do not apply everywhere; keeping this in mind, perhaps the better course of action is to do away with death penalty altogether (Bright 75).
The last reason to reflect on death penalty is the ability of a country and those in power to misuse the law. Power games are very dangerous and the ones who want to cling on it can use any means including murder. Treason, in some situations, can be said to be relative. What a president can pin as treason can be easily just opposition or an act of defending the people’s rights. Abuse of power does not only apply to the heads of states but also the judges of cases. Given the fact that some of the offenders are sentenced to death penalty through arbitration, it is easy to see how judges can abuse their power. A good example would be a judge who uses personal experiences or whims to sentence the offenders. Generally, the ability to take life is such a great power that it should not be accorded to anyone. The consequences of abuse of such a power are so severe and extreme that the world is better off not toying with it. Death penalty can easily help a head of state rise to a dictator if he or she has the ability to eliminate anyone who opposes his or her wish.
However, this is not to say that the penalty is completely irrational. There are some crimes that are committed so harshly that it forces everyone to actively rethink of their stance. Perhaps in some cases it is necessary that people put themselves in the shoes of whoever was murdered. There are murders that take weeks that makes people question the humanity of the offender. Some scholars argue that the matter should not be extended to the family of the offenders and the victims but instead full focus should be on who was killed and who killed him. This is where the “a life for a life” rule originated. When gauging the importance and value of life, putting the victims’ aspirations, wants and needs at the center, one is tempted to support the death penalty especially faced with damning evidence such as witnesses, a live recording, and DNA (Moore 63).
In conclusion, death penalty has more disadvantages to the society in general compared to the advantages that barely exist. A lot speaks of a society that deliberately ends human life since it is very contradictory to choose killing in a bid to fight social problems. It is deemed as a lethal fury since the impact can still be felt by those who are undeserving of the pain. The benefits of it remain illusory but the negative impacts can be pin pointed through destruction of community decency, the economic impact, and a trail of innocent bloodshed that were wrongfully convicted. However, serious crimes should be punished severely to deter future criminals or in efforts to lower the rate of crime at the state and national level. Despite the hotly contested debate, the death penalty is practiced in various parts of the world as punishment against criminal behavior.
Works Cited
Anckar, Carsten. “Why Countries Choose the Death Penalty.” Brown Journal of World Affairs, (2014). pp.20.
Blocher, J. “The death Penalty and the Fifth Ammendment.” NorthWestern Law Review Online, (2016). Pp. 275-295.
Bright, S. “Race, Poverty, the Death Penalty and the Responsibility of Legal Profession. Seattle Journal for Social Justice. (2002). Pp. 72-82.
Donohue, J. & Wolfer, J. “Estimating the Impact of the Death Penalty on Murder”. American Law and Economics Review, (2009). Pp. 249-309.
Galliher, J. & Galliher, J. “Criminology: A “Commonsense” Theory of Deterrence and the “Ideology” Of Science: The New York State Death Penalty Debate”. Journal Criminal Law & Criminology, (2002). Pp. 16
Gius, Mark. “Applied Economics Letters.” The impact of the death penalty and executions on state-Level murder rates: 1980–2011, vol. 23, no. 3, ser. 199-201, 2016. 199-201.
Johnson, Jeffery L., and Colleen F. Johnson. “Journal of Economic Issues.” Poverty and the Death Penalty, xxxv, no. 2, June 2001.
Moore, Josh D. “Death Penalty.” Mercer L. Rev. 65 (2013): 93.
Nichols, John. “Coretta Scott King: Death Penalty Abolitionist.” The Nation, 29 June 2015, www.thenation.com/article/coretta-scott-king-death-penalty-abolitionist/.
Strine, Leo E. “Duty & The Death Penalty.” Duty & The Death Penalty, vol. 21.2.
Westervelt, Saundra Davis., and Kimberly J. Cook. Life after death row: exonerees search for community and identity. Rutgers Univ. Press, 2012.
