In Support of the Death Penalty - Essay Example

?In Support of the Death Penalty Introduction Modern society, despite the progress of civilization and learning, is still an ever-dangerous place to be in. One would think that the liberal ideals of democracy would promote the safety of citizens from the scourge of corruption and criminal indulgence. Unfortunately, crime is still ever rampant in modern society. Crimes against innocent people happen by the minute, even when there are laws that were meant to prevent such problems to happen. Despite the various laws and legal articles made by society to safeguard those less in life, the morally and ethically impaired opportunists called criminals prey on the least fortunate. Criminals can come from any social and economic strata of society. A petty street thug and even a depraved corporate executive can commit any crime against his or her fellow citizen. Crimes of varying degrees are done with utter impunity against helpless innocent people. One must ask where is the law in all this? What happened to the safeguards and the legal forces meant to protect the citizens of society? Sure there are the police force and other law enforcement agencies that are meant to track down and arrest criminals, but they can only apprehend and imprison such problematic characters. It can also be said that the laws of the land wish to spare the lives of those who would brutally and callously destroy the lives of others. Since criminals destroy countless lives and livelihood, why should they be spared from the death penalty? Support for the Death Penalty Before going through the reasons for the death penalty, it should be taken into consideration on how the psychology of death plays a great deal here. It can be said that the average human being is very attached to life, and will generally value his or her own survival above all else. In the face of death, a person will do whatever it takes to stay alive. Between two dilemmas that would avoid death, most human beings would choose either the simplistic solution or the one that can be negotiated. However, this attachment to life hides one of the strongest natural fears of any sentient living organism, which is the fear of death. People are generally afraid to die. It is in the natural psychology of every sentient organism that survival means the avoidance of death or destruction. A human being is even more aware of the fear of death among any other creature in this planet due to the mental ability to rationalize, imagine and have a complex degree of emotions and sentiment. Adding to the fact that human beings developed culture and beliefs that have ties towards the fear of death, a criminal may no less be afraid of death as much as the innocent bystander. A criminal who faces imminent death would experience the same drive to survive as any other normal human being. In understanding that psychology around death, it could be put into perspective that the death penalty would be a very pragmatic and useful means to lessen crime. One could consider it as a strong form of deterrent against active and possible criminals. It would act as both a message and a weapon against criminal acts, and would also be a sign to the citizens that there are active measures being done to ensure public safety, peace and order. Many important people, and some civilizations, in human history saw the practical value of the death penalty. To maintain a peaceful society, it is sometimes considered useful to bring about the fear of death amongst the whole population. Although the idea of using fear could be seen as a questionable course of action, the results would more or less bring the realization of justice and security to society. The use of the death penalty was deemed necessary by many political thinkers and national leaders to make sure that everyone in society does not make cause harm to one another. A very ancient example would be the application of Hammurabi’s Code in the Babylonian civilization. Created by the sixth king of the Babylonian empire named Hammurabi, the Hammurabi Code are a set of laws that serve as guidelines on how citizens should conduct their activities, and also the consequences for their follies. The most striking and well-known rules from the Hammurabi Code are the consequences to the liabilities of one’s actions. The punishments against any person held liable for a fault were considered very harsh to the point of being very draconian. For example, a man who steals from another man would have his hands cut off, or a surgeon who does malpractice will immediately be put to death. Despite being a fiercely strict national code of conduct, it helped create one of the greatest empires of ancient history. The use of the death penalty was used by many other great civilizations of ancient history. The Greeks, Romans, Persians and even the Jews had no qualms in punishing to death individuals who have committed grievous crimes against their fellow citizens and states. The rationale is to scare people from committing crimes for fear that it is a likely path to a gruesome or humiliating death. Most of the time, that plan worked in keeping society peaceful and secured, and criminals were eliminated. It should not be a surprising deal that the Bible itself establishes harsh punishments for sins against both God and other people. This is explained with exact detail in the Old Testament books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Punishments can be due to idolatry to murder, and this can result to death public stoning or by the sword. The ancient Jews held that obedience to the commandments of God would bring blessing to their people while disobedience to the laws of God would lead to suffering or punishment to them all. The Romans, on the other hand, would use the death penalty not only as a form of fear but also as a form of socialized catharsis. Going into the ancient city of Rome, the large coliseums around the metropolis serve as the stage of various entertainments to keep the citizens entertained. While horse races are enjoyed by the average Roman citizen, nothing excites more than the spectacles of death and violence for most Romans. Gladiators are, for the most part, condemned criminals who must fight to the death against each other to actually gain a likely direct imperial pardon. Another spectacle is the condemned non-gladiator criminals being killed and fed by wild animals in the arena. Such shows both shock and wow the crowds of citizens, it keeps them entertained. However, these spectacles of violence serve as both a message and a reminder to what happens to people who disobey and break the laws and customs of the Roman Empire. While gladiators are sometimes viewed as heroes among the crowd, hardly anyone could swallow the idea of being placed in an arena to be in likely free for all fight to the death. So, while the Roman citizens have found a form of entertainment that puts their minds away from daily problems, and also a way to outlet their tension, they also witness the result of those who break the law. This helped the Roman Empire last for centuries with long periods of peace and stability. The idea of the death penalty could find its support from various realist and pragmatic political thinkers. One of the most well-known and brilliant political thinkers of the Renaissance period, Niccolo Machiavelli, saw the importance of the death penalty in keeping the republic or state in good order and security. In Machiavelli’s book The Prince, he states the importance on how a ruler should be ruthlessly forceful in exacting punishments against the enemies within the republic. He wrote that a ruler should either be both kind and ruthless in dealing with the people by giving rewards for merit and brutality towards troublemakers. It should be noted in this case that Machiavelli establishes the importance of the state in both concept and entity with regards to the death penalty. The state as a political entity is tasked to maintain power for the sake in being effective and efficient with its tasks, whether is be a singular ruler are a governing group. As a concept, the state is every loyal citizen within the nation, and the social, economic and political structures that support it. It is usually misunderstood these days that the Machiavellian idea of ruling a state involves an authoritarian ruler who is only interested in staying in power by any means. This is misleading coming from critics of authoritarian rule. Machiavelli held that the safety of the nation requires firm resoluteness, and the only matter to be considered above all matters is nation’s survival. For Machiavelli, any sign of problems by socially and politically troublesome individuals should be dealt with swiftly and relentlessly. He would have no qualms against public executions because it sends a message as well. As mentioned earlier, the death penalty is a fearful deterrent. It is also considered a legal or legitimate way in getting of criminals from all classes of society. Machiavelli would particularly agree with regards to executing people of offices who would only be a problem for the state and its citizens. Conclusion While the death penalty could an effective deterrent against potential and actual criminals, it is not perfect. The application of the death penalty is like a double-edged sword that can have negative repercussions or backfires. In one hand, the death penalty can discipline people through the use of the fear of death. On the other hand, abusive use of the death penalty can also be the fuel for dissent. Excessive or cruel use of harsh punishments have been found to cause discontent and rebellion among citizens. Wanton cruelty by the liberal use of the death penalty creates bigger problems compared to dealing with petty and notorious criminals. There are cases in history that would prove this as justifying or valid. For example, the Qin Dynasty of ancient China was considered one of the greatest dynasties in Chinese history but never lasted long. This was due to the excessively draconian punishments being meted out by the emperors against the citizens for even the most minor infractions. In more recent history, the dictatorial rule of Filipino president Ferdinand Marcos came to an end due to the arbitrary and extrajudicial executions of citizens who were opposed to him, which led to the famous EDSA Revolution. The liberal and abusive use of the death penalty led to the opposite effect from what was intended. In light of those facts, the death penalty should only be used according to the measure of crime committed. It should not be done constantly that it might raise suspicion and doubts against the ruling system. There should be a degree of leniency given to the citizens as not to have their fear of death result to an act of rebellion instead of adhering to discipline and order. That would defeat the rationale of it all. Read More