Introduction
Capital punishment, often known as the death penalty, is a highly debated and emotional topic that has inspired intense arguments for decades. While some say that it acts as a deterrence to crime, others claim that it breaches basic human rights and puts innocent individuals in danger of being executed. The ethical issue surrounding capital punishment is complicated, including concerns about the morality of state-sanctioned murder, the role of the legal system in the community, and the impact on victims’ relatives.
Pros of Capital Punishment: Deterrence of Crime
Deterrence theory is an argument that states that capital punishment should be allowed so that people can avoid committing crimes. According to this concept, people will fear the type of punishment they will receive when they conduct different types of crimes punishable by the death penalty (Sarat, 2022). Therefore, these people will be discouraged from committing crimes due to the punishment they will receive for committing such crimes. According to Emory University research, each execution deters about 18 murders, with the fear of death having a substantial deterrent impact on future murderers (Campbell, 2022). Supporters of the death punishment claim that because most people fear death, this type of punishment has a higher deterrent impact when compared to other kinds of punishment. Several research and data back up the deterrence idea, with some suggesting that the death sentence can prevent crime. Critics claim that the deterrent effect is insufficient to justify the use of the death penalty, although there is also data demonstrating that it has a favorable influence on crime rates. As a result, death punishment has the potential to play an essential role in lowering crime rates and maintaining public safety.
Justice for Victims and Their Families
According to the justice principle, the perpetrator pays the price for their criminal conduct in order to present a just punishment for their deeds. In the past years, the death sentence has served as a just way for victims and the family of the victim (Sarat, 2022). For example, when Timothy McVeigh was executed, his execution brought peace and relief to the family members of his victims (Kandelia, 2020). His execution followed his participation in the bombing of Oklahoma City which took the lives of most Americans. His execution provided a sign of relief for those who lost their loved ones in the incident (Kandelia, 2020). However, opponents of the death sentence contend that the justice principle does not support its usage. This is because they consider it to be a way of revenge, and promoting violence while the purpose of justice is to stop the violence. However, capital punishment can be used as a symbol within society to represent how members disapprove and punish acts of crime and violence among others. Therefore, it remains a way in which crime serious crimes within society can be stopped and avoided.
Cost-Effectiveness
Capital penalty supporters often contend that it is less expensive than other kinds of punishment. An examination of the costs of accommodation and medical care for convicted murderers finds that they can be substantial. Those supporting capital punishment argue that it is cheaper and more affordable to execute a convicted capital offender than when they are imprisoned for life (Kandelia, 2020). The expense of maintaining a death row convict is lower than that of sustaining a general population offender. Furthermore, providing medical care for death row criminals can be substantially less expensive than providing medical treatment for senior general population offenders.
However, a flaw is identified in the cost-effectiveness of the death penalty by opposers. The appeal process during the death penalty case often costs more, and when errors are made, the process always becomes more expensive (Kandelia, 2020). Furthermore, the cost of conducting a death sentence should not be considered a key factor in judgments concerning punishment and justice. Despite these claims, when the judicial process gets improved, appeal processes for cases involving capital punishment can be conducted in a faster and more effective way.
Cons of Capital Punishment: Risk of Executing Innocent People
The possibility of murdering innocent people is the first and possibly most important argument against the use of death punishment. Despite advances in forensic science, errors continue to occur (Rigby & Seguin, 2021). Mistaken convictions and unjust executions continue to be a serious concern. In the United States, over 367 DNA exonerations have occurred (Campbell, 2022). This is an indication that innocent people are mostly found on death row due to false convictions. Even though conducting an appeal may seem like a way to avoid errors in the judicial process, it may fail to be a foolproof mechanism. Furthermore, estimating the cost of killing a person who is innocent may be difficult. The prospect of such a situation is enough to make many individuals reconsider their support for capital punishment.
Perpetuation of Violence
The death penalty is a judicial system that encourages and promotes the circle of violence rather than mitigating it. Opponents of the death penalty contend that the state should not murder its people, even if they have committed horrific crimes (Rigby & Seguin, 2021). The death sentence creates a cycle of violence, and it is probable that it leads to societal tolerance of violence. The prolonged use of the death penalty gives the message that violence is permissible under certain conditions, which is not ideal (Lopes et al., 2022). Furthermore, establishing a causal association between the death sentence and violent crime rates is challenging. The connection between the two is unclear, and it is plausible that the death sentence does not reduce violent crime.
Ineffectiveness as a Deterrent to Crime
Finally, some contend that the death penalty is insignificant as a crime deterrence. While supporters of capital punishment claim that it works as a deterrence to prospective offenders, research suggests otherwise. According to research, the death sentence has no substantial impact on crime rates and so may not be an effective instrument for crime prevention (Anderson & Anderson, 2020). Furthermore, the death sentence can create a sense of unfairness and hatred in certain groups, which can lead to an increase in the rates of crime (Kandelia, 2020). Counterarguments to this issue frequently center on the concept that, while the death penalty may not be a deterrent in all circumstances, it does function as deterrence in certain cases and is hence worth preserving.
While some people support the use of the death penalty, it has severe problems. As countless incidents of erroneous convictions and exonerations demonstrate, the potential of wrongful execution and conviction of innocent persons remains a major worry (Sarat et al., 2019). Furthermore, capital punishment creates a culture of violence by murdering victims as a form of retaliation. Some believe the continuation of violence to be harmful to the objective of a safer and more equitable society. Furthermore, studies and data reveal little or no association between the death sentence and crime rates, undermining the claim that capital punishment is an effective deterrent to crime (Sato, 2019). Therefore, as a society, we must weigh the pros and cons of capital punishment carefully and thoughtfully to determine whether its use aligns with our values and goals as a just and civilized society.
Author’s Thoughts
I find the process of taking human life by the state, no matter how severe their offense, to be very unethical and repugnant to me. First, once capital punishment has taken place, there is no returning back to correct the decision in case errors occur in the judicial process. Once a person has been murdered, they cannot be brought back to life even when new evidence clearly indicates they are innocent. Considering this, an innocent person is at high risk of getting killed for crimes they did not commit. When a such incident occurs, it shows a sign of weakness within the judicial system. This means that no one is safe, considering that the judicial system is taking high risks of killing innocent people while it should be protecting them.
Next, I find this way of justice to be a way of revenge than imposing real and clear resolution procedures. When a person is killed, the victims of the alleged crime and their families gain a sign of relief because the person who caused them pain has also suffered. On the other hand, it leaves the families of the death row suspect or offender with pain for losing their loved one. This shows that the circle of violence is continued whereby not only the person being executed suffers, but where his families also suffer because of the murder. The act will rather leave the families of the executed person with anger, and they might even resort to violence as a way to revenge back. I believe that every bad action is accompanied by a reaction. Therefore, when such an incident occurs with the justice system being at the front row, then the general public will continue to stay at high risk of crime without having a proper way of getting justice.
Rather than promoting the circle of crime, we must shift towards a more human and effective means of obtaining justice. While some may argue that capital punishment is necessary for the sake of justice, the risks and drawbacks of the death penalty far outweigh any potential benefits. I see the utilization of the death penalty as a form of punishment which is a defective and old-fashioned system of justice that is no longer fit for our modern society. I believe that using restorative justice techniques provides a possible alternative to the use of capital punishment by addressing the needs of victims and supporting the rehabilitation of relationships. Preventative measures, rehabilitation programs, and restorative justice techniques are examples of some ways that can be used instead of the death penalty. In the end, society must determine whether the death sentence should be used or whether other options for punishing severe crimes should be considered.
Conclusion
The death penalty is a complex and contentious subject that leaves behind significant ethical questions. Both arguments which support and the ones against the death penalty are complex. People who support the death penalty argue that it has the ability to provide justice for victims and their families, deter crime, and be cost-effective. On the other hand, those opposing the matter claim that it increases the violence cycle, has the risk of executing innocent people, and is ineffective as a deterrent to crime. Even though every side of the argument provides points with compelling arguments, the possibility of killing an innocent person is a more concerning risk of the dilemma.
References
Anderson, S. (2020). The Push to Abolish Capital Punishment. In: A History of Capital Punishment in the Australian Colonies, 1788 to 1900. Palgrave Histories of Policing, Punishment and Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Campbell, K.M. (2022). The nature and extent of wrongful convictions. In N.A. Jackson, K.M. Campbell, & M. Pate (Eds.), The Victimology of a Wrongful Conviction (pp. 23-34). Routledge.
Kandelia, S. (2020). Capital punishment: Creating more victims? In N. Loucks, S.S. Holt, J.R. Adler (Eds.), Why We Kill (pp. 89-108). Routledge.
Lopes, C., De Soto, W., Ribeiro, E., & Gonzalez, J. (2022). Public opinion on the death penalty in Latin America: exploring the individuals determinants in 11 jurisdictions. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 46(4), 343-356. Web.
Rigby, D., & Seguin, C. (2021). Capital punishment and the legacies of slavery and lynching in the United States. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 694(1), 205-219. Web.
Sarat, A. (2022). Lethal Injection and the False Promise of Humane Execution. Stanford University Press.
Sarat, A., Malague, J., & Wishloff, S. (2019). The Death Penalty on the Ballot: American Democracy and the Fate of Capital Punishment. Cambridge University Press.
Sato, M. (2019). Reframing the debate on attitudes towards the death penalty. In C.S. Steiker & J.M. Steiker (Eds.), Comparative Capital Punishment (pp. 301-318). Edward Elgar Publishing.