Analysis of Death Penalty - Research Paper Example

Analysis of Death Penalty Introduction Death penalty or capital punishment has been a topic of intense debate in the society. Death penalty refers to a legal process whereby a person is executed as a means of punishment for crimes committed by the individual (Walker 2). Although numerous countries have abolished the death penalty, several crimes like murder, treason and espionage attract death penalty. Sexual crime like adultery, sodomy and rape are punishable by death penalty in the countries that have a state religion (Walker 51). Several militaries impose death penalty for disciplinary offenses such as desertion, mutiny and cowardice. According to Amnesty International, 58 countries have retained death penalty as a method of punishing serious crime in the society. Countries like China, North Korea and Yemen have the highest number of executions. Statistics point out that at least people were convicted for death in those countries in 2012. Accordingly, 21 countries including Syria and Egypt carried out executions in 2012. The Middle East region witnessed more than 500 executions. Bahrain sentenced eight people to death between 2007 and 2012 and executed two death row convicts during the same period. Some methods of executing the death penalty include shooting at close range, electrocution, hanging, beheading and lethal injection. Thesis statement: death penalty should be abolished since it violates human rights and fails in deterring crime in the society. Opponents of death penalty call for its abolishment by arguing that it contravenes the international human rights (Gottfried 10). Several countries have ratified the International Human rights charter that safeguards the inherent right to life and freedom from any inhumane or degrading treatment. Accordingly, death penalty takes away the right to life thus entrenching cruel and unusual punishments such as lethal injection and execution. The opponents argue that this are barbaric practices associated with slavery and have no place in a modern and civilized society (Gottfried 22). The opponents argue that it is immoral and unethical since it degrades the inherent dignity of human life. Accordingly, some religious teachings such as Christianity forbid the use of death penalty as a means of punishing crime. Although Islamic teaching allow for death punishment in cases of murder, the family of the victim can instead ask for financial compensation and pardon the murderer from death sentence. The punishment leads to severe pain and contravenes the civilized treatment of human beings that should be accorded to every citizen (Gottfried 34). The punishment also leads to suffering to the immediate family members and relatives of the executed criminals. However, proponents argue that it will lead to the greatest happiness in the society since most of the citizens are law abiding and execution of few individuals will lead to law and order in the society (Gottfried 39). The opponents argue that arbitrary application of death penalty is possible and sometimes it leads to the execution of innocent individuals. Abolitionists of this sentence argue that it is irrevocable. Accordingly, there are instances where convicted individuals have been freed after successful appeal from death row thus suggesting that judges sometimes error in their sentencing (Gottfried 44). In addition, the imposition of this sentence denies the executed criminal the opportunity to benefit from new laws or new evidence that can warrant the reversal of death sentence or freedom of the individual (Gottfried 91). Abolitionists have pointed out that this punishment is applied discriminatively thus violating the principle of equal protection. There is racial and economic discrimination in the issue of death sentences since accused individuals from poor economic backgrounds and racial minorities in the society are more likely to receive a death punishment for the same crime while compared with their counterparts from rich backgrounds and racial majority. This is partly because the rich individuals are capable of hiring experienced attorneys who can successfully defend the accused against death sentence (Stearman 45). Accordingly, death sentence entrenches racial stereotypes. Despite African Americans forming less than 15 percent of the total US population, about 50 percent of death row convicts are African Americans thus suggesting a trend of racial discrimination in death penalty sentencing. However, proponents of death penalty counter this claim by arguing that racial minorities and individual from poor economic background commit more serious crimes despite their low proportion in terms of entire population thus such as phenomenon should not be assumed as discrimination in death penalty sentencing process (Gottfried72). Oppressive governments still use death penalty to prohibit the freedom of speech through executing through threatening to execute the opposition leaders. Liberal abolitionists suggest that this punishment is an expression of the absolute power of the government to control its citizens. In this case, abolishment of the punishment will limit and regulate extend to which the governments can limit the civil liberties of its citizens. For instance, oppressive regimes try to utilize all avenues of criminal justice system such as imposing police brutality, unwarranted arrests and ultimately execution thus curtailing civil liberties and democratic ideals in the society (Stearman 59). On the other hand, proponents of death penalty argue that it is appropriate in retribution since crime must attract an equivalent level of severe punishment. In this case, the proponents propose that criminals convicted of murder, homicides, terrorism or massacre must attract similar punishment in which in this case is death penalty (Gottfried123). This principle of ‘eye for an eye’ asserts that punishment must be painful and proportional to the severity of crime. However, the abolitionists counter this claim by arguing that this move encourages revenge outside the criminal justice system and it is tantamount to implying that life punishment without parole is also acceptable as means of punishing crime (Stearman 67). The proponents of this sentence claim that it deters crime in the society (Walker 121). In this case, an executed offender is removed from the society and cannot repeat the same heinous crimes again. However, abolitionists counter this argument by asserting that there are other efficient methods of controlling crimes such as life sentences without the possibility of parole. Life sentence will allow the convicted criminals experience guilty of their crimes and participate in educating the society on the importance of obeying the laws. In addition, life imprisonment is harsher thus, individuals will fear committing crime due to the possibility of remaining behind bars in their entire life (Stearman 78). Proponents of death sentence point out that it is cost effective to execute criminals convicted of serious crimes that constructing prison facilities and employing additional prison officers to look at the welfare of the prisoners in cells (Gottfried 147). In addition, the available economic resources of many countries are constrained thus governments must divert resources to other economic projects rather than maintaining prison facilities. However, opponents counter this argument by asserting that it is more costly to convict an individual and issue and death penalty due to the long judicial process and need to provided state attorney to the accused (Stearman 83). In addition, the standard of proof for death penalty is high and the process involves extensive evidence collection and countless appeals by the accused individual. In this case, the government will be forced to hire experienced law enforcement investigators and additional judicial staff thus increasing the costs associated with judicial justice system and death penalty court cases in the country (Stearman 99). Conclusion In my view, I believe death penalty should be abolished since it is cruel, inhumane and contravenes the international human right laws. The sentence does not deter crime and leads to suffering of the immediate family members. Accordingly, the judicial system may make errors thus death sentence may lead to execution of innocent individuals. The process of death sentencing is lengthy and costly thus life imprisonment is more preferred criminal punishment than death sentence. In addition, oppressive regimes misuse the legal process to suppress other civil liberties like freedom of speech and association. In conclusion, death penalty should be abolished since it violates human rights and fails in deterring crime in the society. Works cited: Gottfried, T. Capital punishment: the death penalty debate. London: Enslow Publishers. 1997. Stearman, K. The death penalty. New York: Rosen Publications. 2007. Walker, Ida. The death penalty. Minneapolis: ABDO Publications. 2008. Read More