The death penalty should be administered for particularly heinous crimes - Research Paper Example

January 9th Death penalty has been in place up to and whenever it is mentioned in courtroom, itelicits varied views from people, many terming it as a deterrent while others claiming it is unfair and ungodly mode of punishment. Punishment by death penalty has been a contentious debate whereby many declare it unconstitutional, inhumane and ungodly; however, it is the best form of deterrent to heinous crimes to criminals. Death penalty has not been used for many years because they are usually swift and one considered best deterrent.

With the use of capital punishment, most people are afraid of death that is inflicted by the law; hence, what is most fearful is likely to deter most criminals into engaging in heinous crimes. According to Hess and Drowns in their book wrote that death penalty is a better deterrent to violent youths (330). Administering death penalty will be effective in deterring murderers who might otherwise not been deterred through any other means when they friend face this punishment. This is because most of these murderers when given life sentence in place of death penalty, they continue committing crimes in prison, such as murdering other prisoners or even prison wards; therefore, death sentence is the only punishment that can be used to prevent such criminals from committing crimes.

Otherwise, they will not be discouraged into committing heinous crimes through any other means, and again because both convicted prisoners and prison warders deserve protection from these criminals.In addition, it is important to enforce death penalty as a form of retribution even though death penalty does not prove to stop murderers from continuing the practice due to the threat of life imprisonment. On the contrary, the finality of death penalty creates fear amongst criminals and sparing the life of prospective victims by deterring those who murdered them, is of more importance than preserving the life of a convicted murderer because of the possibility that executing them will not necessarily deter other murderers.

Therefore, in addition, to using death penalty to prevent crime, it is not imposed for the main purpose of reattributing crimes, for instance, in case of murder it is unjust for the criminal to live. Putting threats and punishment is a necessity in the deterrence since it a one justification for violent crimes. Therefore, a criminal who commits heinous crime volunteers to assume the risks involved; hence, the punishment suffered is voluntarily risked and it is unjust to the criminal not to be convicted and given a death penalty.

On the other hand, as Cole and Smith state death penalty lingers as barbaric especially from the less civilized age (274). Even though death penalty is considered one of the best solutions for deterring dangerous criminals from violent crimes other than life imprisonment. Moreover, Sather contends that execution removes killers from the society but at the same time, it brutalizes (256). Death penalty causes brutality to the society increasing the probability of likelihood murders. Most people involved in murder crimes do the crime without the expectation of being caught.

On the contrary, heinous crimes such as murder are committed in the act of passion or even by drug users and they may have acted in an impulsive way. There is no sufficient evidence showing death penalty is an efficient way of deterring other crimes other than life imprisonment. Therefore a criminal in prison will settle into a routine and will become less a threat to commit violence hence the society will be safe without the assurance by death penalty.In conclusion, regardless of the type and nature of a crime committed, it is the responsibility of the judiciary to punish a criminal through death penalty; it is justifiable in other circumstances to punish heinous criminals by death.

This is to curb such vices, offer the most appropriate and justifiable retribution to crimes committed, and consequently ensure that these crimes reduce in our society.Works CitedCole, George F. and Smith, Christopher, E. Criminal Justice in America. California, USA: Thompson Learning Inc. 2007.Print.Hess Kalen M., and Drowns Robert, W. Juvenile Justice. Belmont, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 2009.Print.Sather, Trevor. Pros and Cons: A Debater’s Handbook. London, UK: Routledge. 2012.Print.