The Death Penalty - Essay Example

Capital punishment is a very litigious issue. According to Peikrishvili, it is a very sensitive which touches individual’s deepest instincts including ideas of revenge, fear hatred, and honor. Some countries still apply it whilst other countries such as the United States have proscribed it. There exist numerous arguments pertaining its effectiveness as well as merits in serious crime deterrence. This paper responds to this topic of the death penalty and it argues in its favor. Introduction The Death Penalty, also referred to as Capital punishment, is the most severe type of punishment and it points to putting a convict to death. Judicial process/officers in charge of law enforcement do this as a punishment to the offender for a crime. Authorized means through which it is carried out include hanging, lethal injection, electrocution, use of the guillotine, gassing, firing squad (Duhaime.org, 1). Examples of offences that are punishable through capital punishment are espionage, rape as well as other sexual crimes, murder, treason, and repeated crimes. Capital punishment is also performed as part of military justice. I strongly hold the view that if an offender is convicted of such a crime(s) as outlined above, he/she should be executed as punishment over the offense. This is because as the criminal provisions deem them, such offenders are a sickening threat to society’s existence (Legal-explanations.com, 1). It is therefore a generally very instrumental method of containing/reducing criminal tendencies (Garland, 208). Some of the arguments in support of the death penalty are discussed below. Morality of Executions Whenever a person initiates force against another innocent person, he/she has actually made a declaration that he/she does not abide by individual rights’ principle. That person is not ready to live as a rational being among men. Instead, he/she only wishes to live as a predator, to the disadvantage and obliteration of all the people around him/her. Rights arise from the nature of man as a rational being, and if one chooses to live irrationally, he/she has no rights. Destroying such a harmful animal is both sensible in addition to being an is an act of justice for the society, whereby an individual is treated in accordance with how they act. ‘Proportionality’ is a concept in justice and it states that the reaction should fit the action. In other words, the reward should fit the act and the punishment should fit the crime. In view of proportionality, a criminal’s premeditated murder of an innocent person by justly warrants the state’s premeditated execution of that criminal. If justice does not exist, people would take justice into their own hands (Landauer & Rowlands, 2&3). Deterrence This is the notion that by meting out punishment to criminals, the state can inflict fear not only on the offender, but also in others in such a way that they will dread committing crimes in the future (Robinson, 3). Apparently, more successfully than imprisonment, the threat that a person will face execution deters capital crimes. In view of the fact that society has the highest interest in murder prevention, it should employ the strongest punishment accessible to dissuade murder. In this case, the death penalty serves best (Deathpenaltycurriculum.org, 1). Research indicates that in countries like Singapore where almost all capital offences lead to the execution of the offender, serious crimes are not ubiquitous. According to Tremoglie, statistics in a variety of states prove this point. Examining a situation in Britain as his benchmark he explains that manslaughter and murder cases have increased in Britain to 1 .42 per 100,000 from 0.68 per 100,000 of the population from the time when capital punishment was abolished in the year 1964. This report came from the Home Office, which noted that there was a disquieting increase in illegitimate killings from three hundred to five hundred and sixty five and eight hundred and thirty three in the years 1964, 1994 and 2004 respectively. In addition, as opposed to homicide as well as other unlawful killings the number of those offenders convicted for the concrete murder crime has as well been mounting inexorably. Tremoglie notes that in the year 1965, the first year of the abolition of capital punishment, there was a report of fifty-seven cases and a report of one hundred and seven cases in a period of ten years. Because people who were released from prison after having served life sentences committed seventy-one murders, during the time between 1965 and 1998 alone, Tremoglie confidently believes that the death sentence is a definite deterrent to crime. This is especially where the potential criminal takes time to think regarding the probable consequences of his/her actions (Capitalpunishmentuk.org, 11). I believe that the argument that death penalty is not a deterrent to crime is flawed and misleading. Retribution Retribution refers to a rational state-sponsored, reaction to criminality that is vindicated given that when a crime takes place, the state is the victim (Robinson, 2). Retribution is an arguable, major justification of capital punishment, which punishes the criminal in terms of ‘just deserts’. It rather than focusing on the future, it focuses on the past events and supposes that the punishment should fit the crime – ‘a tooth for a tooth’, in a manner of speaking. Generally, offenders who receive capital punishment are those who cause the society serious harm. For example, a murderer receives the death penalty with the rationalization that ‘two wrongs make a right’ (Cavadino & Dignan, 44). The retributive argument, it appears, is the strongest – the government is justified in seeking justice when it is harmed with the intention of re-balancing the scales of justice that the offender tilted to his/her benefit at the time when he/she committed the crime (Robinson, 2). Death penalty is therefore a very real punishment, which ensures that the criminal is made to suffer in proportion to the crime (capitalpunishmentuk.org, 11). Retributive concerns should preside over the punishment of convicted offenders, and the principle of proportionality between offense and punishment as well as the requirement that individuals face penalty only for acts for those acts that they are truly responsible are key among these considerations. I believe that retributive considerations are enough to lay down a particular penalty for a certain offense, but in comparative terms, I believe that they call for using more severe punishment when dealing with offenses that are more serious (Hoekema, 17). Incapacitation of the criminal This has to do with the act of taking the freedom of an individual away with the intention that he/she is not able to commit another crime (Robinson, 4). Scott defines incapacitation as a philosophical validation of punishment, which necessitates that the physical capacity of an offender to offend be removed (199). Death penalty perfectly achieves this – it is the ultimate form of incarceration (Robinson, 4). The fact that the death penalty permanently removes from society the worst criminals is a clear indication that compared to permanent/long term confinement; it had definitely proved to be much safer. Apparently, a criminal who faces execution cannot commit extra crimes/cannot involve himself/herself in crime any longer and he/she therefore ceases being a threat to the public. Death sentence is therefore far much better compared to incarceration whereby one can escape, be released or even commit another crime while in prison (capitalpunishmentuk.org, 9). As with retribution, incapacitation is a lawful justification for punishment administration because the government’s principal responsibility to ensure that its citizens are protected from harm and one of our justice systems’ goals is criminality reduction (Robinson, 4).  Ward explains that Jeremy Bentham (1843), a ‘reductivist utilitarian’, had argued this validation of punishment by stating that ‘in order for a body to act in a place, it must be present… he will neither break into a house, nor raise a pistol to a passenger, nor pick a pocket in any British ground spot within that time.’ For that reason, this statement justifies the capital punishment, stating that if a person is incapacitated, he/she cannot commit any crime. Consequently, that capital punishment does justice to this very philosophy is a credible assertion (Ward, 3). Criminal Ostracized Capital punishment of a convicted offender makes sure that the nastiest criminals are permanently removed from the society. The death penalty should therefore prove a much safer means of correcting behavior. It also indicates that the believed criminal is subject to abhorrence. There is no punishment known to bring a firmer effect on an offender than capital punishment; not even imprisonment. Obviously, when criminals die, their capability of committing any further crime disintegrates with them. Costs Another reason as to why I support the death penalty is the fact that it cuts down costs. Money is a draining commodity and rather than incarcerating capital offenders for a long time, the government may very well think on how better it can spend monetary resources rather than using it on rapists and other capital offenders. This money could be directed to the care of the sick, the old as well as the young. Included in these costs are the costs of executing a criminal over life in prison as well as the cost sustained during the rigorous legal system that entails endless appeals and holdups in reaching the decree of a death sentence (capitalpunishmentuk.org, 10). I strongly hold the opinion that for offenders convicted of capital offenses, incarceration is costly and absolutely out of point, not mentioning the fact that it is a very lenient option. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, one can self-assuredly conclude that the capital punishment is a generally very instrumental method of reducing/containing criminal tendencies. Additionally, deterrence, retribution, costs, incapacitation, among others are reasons that support capital punishment and it is not arguable through palpable proof that they are purposefully meant to control crime. Capital punishment is therefore a very suitable rejoinder to criminals’ barbarous and inhuman acts, some of which are so repugnant and monstrous that the community cannot stand. Individuals who contravene the personhood of other people, particularly if they do this in disquieting persistence thus making it a habit, must pay the definitive penalty with the purpose of maintaining the community whose footing is in utter violation. Regrettably, in modern times, there are frequent observations of murderers being able to escape juries’ fangs, some on the grounds of diminished liability, human rights to life, supposed psychiatric anomalies, among others. This has a tendency of to removing citizens’ faith in justice, a very dangerous thing for the state (Ford, 2009). If nations and states aspire to witness a corresponding drop in serious crimes, they should unite in the reintroduction of the death penalty for the worst criminals such as serial killers, rapists, among others. They should majorly focus on ensuring that retributive justice exists – the criminal should be made to experience justice that is relative to the crime that he/she has committed. Although this may look like revenge of some sort, it is nevertheless a form of justice. Works Cited Capitalpunishmentuk.org. Arguments for and against capital punishment in the UK. N.d. Web. Cavadino, M. and Dignan, J. Penal Systems: A Comparative Approach. The British Journal of Sociology, 58(2007): 496–497. Print. Deathpenaltycurriculum.org. Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty. 2000. Web. Duhaime.org Death Penalty. N.d Web. Garland, David. Punishment and Modern Society: A Study of Social Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1991. Print. Hoekema, David A. Capital Punishment: The Question of Justification. N.d. Web. Landauer, Jeff & Rowlands, Joseph. The Death Penalty. 2001. Web. Legal-explanations.com. Capital Punishment. 2007. Web. Peikrishvili, Irakli. Death Is Not Justice – The Council of Europe and the Death Penalty. 2004. Web. Robinson, Matt. Justifications for Capital Punishment. 2009. Web. Scott, David. Penology. London: Sage Publications. 2008. Print. Tremoglie, Michael. Capital-Punishment Canards. 2003.Web. Ward, Ashleigh. Incapacitation: The only Justification for the Death Penalty. 2011.Web. Read More