Why Death Penalty Should Be Compulsory for Those Who Kill Others - Essay Example

Name: Instructor: Course: Date: Introduction Death penalty, also known as capital punishment is the pre-contemplated and intentional taking of life of a person by a government, in response to an offense that is committed by that legitimately convicted human being (Stearman 1). In the United States, the death penalty practice has not been put into consideration so much. There are various reasons why some people argue that compulsory death penalty should be administered to those who kill others while others feel it should not. Compulsory death penalty for people who kill other people has equally strong supporters and those in objection. This context therefore discusses the reasons why death penalty should be compulsory or not for people who kill other people. Reasons why death penalty should be compulsory for those who kill others For a start, several people have an innate fear of death (Stearman 24). It is a characteristic an individual has to consider the consequence prior to the action. It an individual does not think about it intentionally, he will think about it unconsciously. For instance, if each murderer who murdered someone died immediately, the rate of homicide would be decreased since nobody likes to die. People cannot do this, but if the system of justice can make it faster and harsh, we could modify the laws to make death penalty faster and make petitions a shorter procedure (Ornellas 1). Compulsory capital punishment for those who kill is significant because it could preserve the lives of several possible victims who are at risk. Another pro for compulsory capital punishment for the people who kill is that it acts as an eye for an eye punishment. A number of people argue that the death penalty tends to assault and ignore society. This is not true because several people say that the punishment is legal murder since it is like an eye for an eye. The dissimilarity between penalty and the offense is that one is lawful while the other is not (Ornellas 1). Antagonists say that the government is like murder. The case here is if execution is murder, then executing a person in war is murder. Then states should forbid fighting wars. On the opposite, it is essential to protect people’s rights. For this reason, the capital punishment is essential to protect an individual’s right to live. Similarly, execution of someone who has killed another person is not murder; it is penalty by society for a justified criminal (Stearman 31). Compulsory capital punishment should be allowed since there is no other penalty that should become guaranteed for any person who deliberately killed or united with the killer (White 1). For the reason that the murderer cannot turn around death to life then he deserves death as well. In regards to morality, compulsory death penalty respects human being’s dignity by regarding the defendant as a free ethical actor in capacity to handle his own fate for good or for bad; it does not consider him as an animal with no principled sense (Robertson 205). Constitutionally, compulsory death penalty for those who kill others is regarded as a pro since the procedure of death sentence may result to pain, either as a misfortune or as an inevitable outcome of death, does not form the kind of impartially agonizing risk of harm. Considering irreversible mistakes, the pro of compulsory death punishment for people who kill others is that there is no procedure of impartiality that can produce results which are definitely one hundred percent, always. Errors are constantly generated in any method that depends on the evidence testified by people (White 1). Hence, carefulness should be considered to uncover and avoid errors. Life is considered as holy. For this reason, no one is entitled to take away another person’s life. If someone takes away another person’s life, then his life should be taken away as well. There should be mandatory death penalty for those who kill others because of justice. Justice necessitates penalizing the culpable even if only a number can be penalized and sparing the not guilty, even if everyone is not spared (Robertson 300). Morally, impartiality must constantly be preferred to fairness. Impartiality cannot ever allow sparing some guilty individual, or penalizing some innocent people, for the sake of fairness since others have been spared or penalized. In practice, punishments can never be functional if we claimed that they could be imposed on only a person who is guilty unless we are capable of making sure that they are applied evenly to every other guilty individual. The most important principle of impartiality is that the punishment should fit the crime (Stearman 20). Death penalty is not extreme, unnecessary sentence, for the people who deliberately and intentionally kill in premeditation, to take other people’s lives. Even though death penalty is not frequently implemented, it still is a warning to the criminal (White 1). When someone commits an offense like murder, it is an issue of free will. Nobody is forced to commit a felony (White 1). The regular civilian does not have a mind or plan to become a murderer or being mistakenly accused of murder. Reasons why death penalty should not be mandatory for those who kill others First, capital punishment fails to restore. This is so because it does not achieve anything to put a person on death row. The victim is dead already and no one can bring him back. When the opponents say that there is fear of death will inhibit a person from performing murder, it is not correct since various murders are carried out on the peak of passion, when someone cannot think wisely (Ornellas 1). For that reason, there is no time to think of fright in the peak of passion. In the United States, the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) is working on a suspension on the death sentence and to stop state-authorized murder (Ornellas 1). They state that it is very upsetting to any person who values the life of a human being. The American Bar Association stated that the quality of the lawful representation is significant. By the time the case is up for appeal, ninety-nine percent of criminal defendants turn out to be penniless. They say that they are unfairly treated. A number of murderers who do not possess money receive the death sentence. Another reason why death penalty should not be mandatory for those who kill others is because death penalty did not succeed as a deterrent (Ornellas 1). A number of criminologists state they have proven statistically that when an execution is exposed, more murders happen in the subsequent day and weeks. Publicity may promote crime instead of stopping it. Death is amongst the punishments which makes mistake permanent and the chance of mistake is unavoidable when based on human verdict. On the opposite, occasionally defendants claim execution. They believe it is an act of humanity to them. The death punishment providing improved protection against being murdered is an argument for extension of the death sentence, which most possibly is a deterrent, but it has failed as prevention (White 1). Mandatory death penalty for the people who kill others does not depress crime. It is identified that we require severe penalty as prevention to crime (White 1). This may possibly be a strong argument if it can be established that the death punishment demoralizes murderers. There are some studies that give powerful proof that the death punishment does not depress crime at all. There is the occurrence of innocent conviction. The regions that have the death punishment should be free of assassinations, but those regions have the highest number of murders, and the regions that eliminate the death punishment have less. Conviction of the people not guilty occurs and death creates a miscarriage of impartiality irreversible. For example, Maine and Rhode Island are the two states that abolished the death punishment due to public shame and guilt following the discovery of execution of a number of innocent people (Ornellas 1). Another reason why death penalty should not be mandatory for those who kill others is that fright of death does not decrease crime, particularly murder. Nearly all past executions were open and cruel. A number of criminals were even slowly compressed to death under bulky weight. Crimes like murder were more frequent at that moment than it is presently. Proof displays execution does not work as prevention to death penalty (Robertson 200). Constitutionally, death punishment is regarded a con because death is an extremely severe punishment, odd in its pain, in its resolution, and in its degree. The significant legal shortcoming in the death penalty for those who kill others is that constituents of the human race are regarded as nonhumans and toys (White 1). A lot of people are being murdered and will be murdered since the justice scheme is not very operational. Several people have already been murdered and will be murdered each year. A number of them are knifed, assaulted, or shot. This crime has increased due to too much kindness going together with the high rate of people being offended. There are several loop holes invented for offenders, and due to this, the rate of crime has increased significantly (Ornellas 1). Research shows that the motive for compulsory death punishment for those who kill others may be for revenge. Legal revenge coagulates social cohesion against breakers of the law and is the substitute to the secretive revenge of the people who feel harmed (Stearman 31). Conclusion In conclusion, this context has considered both sides of the cases regarding compulsory death penalty for the people who kill others. Exciting matters are reviewed like the fear of death punishment, and the execution of the people who are not guilty. Too much weight is put on the convicted murderer as compared to the casualty. The murderers walk out of prison early and commit the crime again. This is because the structure of criminal justice handles a person better if he is wealthy and accountable than when a person is poor and not guilty. Work cited Ornellas, Lori. Death Penalty Arguments. Web, 23 February 2012. Robertson, Diane. Tears from Heaven, Voices From Hell: The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty as Seen Through the Eyes of The Victims of Violent Crime and Death Row Inmates Throughout America. New York: iUniverse, 2002. Print. Stearman, Kaye. The Debate about the Death penalty. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2007. Print. White, Deborah. Pros & Cons of the Death Penalty. Web, 23 February 2012. Read More