The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has been a highly debated and controversial issue among Americans for the past century. It involves executing criminals who are considered unfit to live.
Some criticize it for being excessively severe and inhumane because it may not always guarantee a painless death. However, others believe in the principle of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
Despite its abolition in certain states like California, Alabama, and Oregon, many still support this form of punishment.
There is an argument that capital punishment should be reintroduced across all American provinces due to its deterrent effect on further criminal offenses. Supporters argue that it upholds justice, deters crime, ensures public safety, and is not influenced by racial bias when deciding the fate of victims.
Conversely, opponents argue that there is a significant correlation between this system and racial discrimination.
The death penalty is not linked to racism or the emotional aspect of the argument, as some believe. Its implementation lacks evidence of racial bias. However, killing a human is considered by many as inhumane. One worry raised is the accidental execution of innocent individuals due to biases within the system. Despite this concern, there has been no proof of any innocent person being executed since safeguards were introduced in the appeals process during the 1970s. An exception to this occurred with George Stinney, a 14-year-old boy accused and executed for murder in the 1940s. Stinney purportedly confessed to the crime.
The debate over whether the extensive investment of time, money, and resources in executing convicted murderers is justified has been raised despite the minimal risk after a certain period of time (Ryan 1). It is unfair to imprison individuals without knowing their innocence, but society cannot release them solely based on the possibility of innocence. Some prisoners have been freed due to legal technicalities or new evidence, but this does not undermine the necessity for punishment (Deterrence “In Support of the Death Penalty” 1). In cases where someone is proven innocent, clemency can be granted by a higher authority within the year-long death sentence period. This allows for review of evidence by Supreme Court Justice to identify any potential errors (Fische 3). While rare, theoretically executing an innocent person may serve as a deterrent to other potential murderers and remains an acceptable risk when implementing the death penalty (Deterrence “In Support of the Death Penalty” 1). Studies have shown that capital punishment effectively lowers murder rates (Capital Punishment 3). Throughout history, society has used punishment as a means to discourage potential criminals from committing unlawful acts. Therefore, preventing murders is a significant concern for society.
The death penalty is the harshest form of punishment and is advocated for use against the most heinous criminals. It serves as a deterrent to potential murderers who may think twice before taking a life due to the fear of losing their own. Extensive research has compared states with and without the death penalty, analyzing murder rates in different regions. The findings indicate that states like California have significantly lower murder rates compared to cities like Chicago. Research suggests that every person put on death row saves the lives of seven individuals, emphasizing the value of each life. Factors play a crucial role in this issue, especially when circumstances vary greatly.
Individuals facing a death sentence may be inclined to commit further crimes as they perceive having nothing to lose (Deterrence “In Opposition to the Death Penalty” 2). While it is impossible to kill them twice, it should be acknowledged that death is one of the most feared things (Taylor 3). Fear holds great power as it can compel people to take their own lives before someone else does. Although not all criminals will be deterred by perceived invincibility until apprehended, statistical evidence leads us to conclude that the death penalty indeed reduces murder rates (Deterrence “In Support of the Death Penalty” 2).
“An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.” This quote is frequently used by opponents of the death penalty to emphasize our natural inclination for revenge when our loved ones are harmed. Nevertheless, seeking immediate revenge is deemed unjust, which is why there exists a proper process in place to determine eligibility for punishment. Victims and their loved ones are prohibited from passing judgment as this could result in bias and unfairly determine someone’s fate. Consequently, comprehensive measures are taken in selecting judges who can self-evaluate before making decisions that will impact others’ lives. Advocates of the death penalty question who should bear ultimate responsibility for judgment if no one has the right to evaluate another individual (Taylor 2). As a society, we cannot allow those who commit heinous acts against us to escape punishment as it would fail to teach us anything and discourage future crimes. However, critics argue that relying solely on emotional desire for revenge does not justify implementing capital punishment given all its associated problems and risks.
It is crucial for our laws and criminal justice system to be guided by principles that show a deep respect for every human life, even those who have committed murder. The act of seeking vengeance through executions only continues the cycle of violence. Emotions should not influence our justice system or impede our judgement. The punishment system we use for the most heinous criminals acts as an effective deterrent, ultimately protecting innocent lives. By implementing the death penalty, we instill fear in potential future criminals.
