Arguments in Favor of the Death Penalty - Essay Example

Introduction The subject of capital punishment, also referred to as death penalty, is a highly sensitive and contentious as it touches on people’s deepest instincts including ideas of honor, hatred, revenge, and fear. This paper holds the view that capital punishment is a very appropriate rejoinder to the barbarous and cruel acts that criminals engage in. It argues in favor of the fact that criminals who have no regard to other people’s personhood must face this definitive penalty in order to maintain the community whose footing is in sheer violation, especially if they deliberately do this in distressing persistence thereby making it a routine. Some of the offences that should be punished through death include repeated crimes, espionage, murder, rape and other sexual crimes, and treason. Death penalty should also be performed as part of martial justice. Any offender convicted of any of the above crimes should face execution executed as punishment over the offense. This is because as the criminal provisions deem them, such since he/she is a repugnant threat to the society. A key reason for supporting capital punishment rests of the morality of execution – once a human being applies force against an innocent person, in reality, he/she has affirmed the fact that that he/she does not conform to the principle of individual rights. It is a sign that he/she wants to live as a predator, to the disadvantage and obliteration of all the people around him/her – he/she is not prepared to live as a logical individual among other people. Rights stem from man’s nature as a logical being, and if a person decides on living irrationally, he/she has does not have rights. Executing such a harmful being is sensible. It is only just for the society, if that individual is treated in line with his/her actions. Just as the reward should match the action, punishment should also fit the crime. This concept is referred to as proportionality and it states that reaction should fit the action. As proportionality holds, the premeditated murder of a guiltless individual justifies a premeditated death penalty of the criminal by the state. Absence of justice would make people to take justice in their own hands (Landauer & Rowlands, 2&3). Secondly, capital sentence leads to deterrence. Deterrence refers to the notion that the state can mete out fear to potential and existing criminals by punishing criminals. An offender will dread being involved in a crime that is punishable by death (Robinson, 3). Without doubt, the threat that a criminal will face execution prevents him/her from engaging in capital crimes and this works more effectively compared to imprisonment. Given that the society has the greatest interest in the prevention of such capital crimes as murder; it should make use of the death penalty, the strongest form of punishment, to dissuade criminals from engaging in such crimes. According to Tremoglie, in Britain, ever since the abolition of execution in the year 1964, cases of homicide have mounted from 0.68 for every 100,000 to 1 .42 for every 100,000 of the population. Reports from the Home Office indicate that there was an alarming raise in illegitimate killings from 300 to 565 and 833 in 1964, 1994 and 2004 in that order. As opposed to homicide and other illegal killings, the number of criminals convicted for actual murder crime has as well been increasing rapidly. Tremoglie further notes that in 1965, the first year of death penalty abolition in Britain, fifty-seven and one hundred and seven cases were registered in ten years’ time. He confidently considers capital sentence as a definite deterrent to crime, seeing that criminals who were serving life sentences and later discharged from prisons committed seventy-one murders from 1965-1998. Another point in favor of the death penalty is the fact that it incapacitates the criminal – it takes his/her freedom away in such a way that he/she is not in a position to commit another crime. In other words, it removes the physical capacity of a criminal to offend (Robinson, 4).  Since capital punishment permanently eliminates the worst offenders, it is a much better and safer option than incarceration whereby an offender can be freed, can flee or even perpetrate another crime while still in prison. If executed, an offender cannot engage in other crimes – he/she permanently ceases being a menace to the society (Capitalpunishmentuk.org, 9). As it is the case with retribution, incapacitation is a lawful punishment administration justification since the key responsibility of a government is to ensure that its citizens receive protection from harm and criminality reduction is one of the goals of our justice systems (Robinson, 4).  Another reason for supporting capital punishment is the fact that it leads to costs reduction. The state sustains enormous cost during the painstaking legal system, which entails never-ending appeals and hitches in reaching the death penalty decree. Instead of sending capital criminals to prison for a long period time, the government should do away with them and put the monetary resources that it uses on them into better use. For instance, the money could go to the care of the needy in the society. Apart from the fact that incarceration is very lenient, it is also very costly and totally out of point especially for capital criminals (Capitalpunishmentuk.org, 10). According to Charles, capital punishment opponents believe that imposing capital punishment without giving sufficient time for investigation would result in the execution of innocent people. As Capitalpunishmentuk.org records, the opponents also believe that there exist faults in the criminal justice system, which may cause the execution of innocent people as a result of various reasons. They also claim that the death sentence goes against the principle of human rights – they believe that nobody has the right of putting another person to death and that carrying out execution is taking on God’s role and denying a person the right to life. Arguing against death penalty, Tremoglie also documents that capital punishment is a brusque instrument that carts off people’s kindness to demonstrate compassion as well as the possibility of adequate rehabilitation. She believes that capital punishment is the definitive cruel and degrading punishment and that it denies the supposed offender the prospect of giving something back to humanity. Another argument that counters punishment by death is that it is not likely that it deters the most horrible murderers since usually, they are either psychopaths or have such questionable sanity such that they are not capable of logical character additionally, opponents assert that it causes distress to friends and family of the victim – it is not easy for them to agree to the reality that the victim could be guilty, leave alone accepting that he/she will face execution. Conclusion Apparently, arguments in favor of the death penalty outweigh those against it. One can therefore boldly conclude that this form of punishment provides a very instrumental method of crime reduction as well as containing unlawful tendencies. Persons who disregard other people’s personhood deserve to die. Regrettably, murderers and other capital crime offenders have oftentimes managed to escape execution on baseless grounds. This takes away the faith of the society in justice, which is very risky thing for the state. If there is to be a drop in capital crimes, people should join in death penalty reintroduction. Retributive justice should be upheld, with the offender being made to go through justice that is equivalent with his/her crime. Works Cited Capitalpunishmentuk.org. Arguments for and against capital punishment in the UK. N.d. Web. Charles, D. J. (1994). “Sentiment as Social Justice: The Ethics of Capital Punishment.” Christian Research Journal (17: 1-7). Print. Landauer, Jeff & Rowlands, Joseph. The Death Penalty. 2001. Web. Robinson, Matt. Justifications for Capital Punishment. 2009. Web. Tremoglie, Michael. Capital-Punishment Canards. 2003. Web. Read More