The Death Penalty is not an Effective Punishment - Essay Example

The Death Penalty is not an Effective Punishment Death penalty is undoubtedly one of the oldest and most common forms of punishment meted out against heinous and grave crimes in many cultures and world civilizations. In USA, for instance, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the year 2009 alone, 52 inmates were executed. But despite these high numbers of executions in USA, studies in social sciences have revealed that death penalty as a form of punishment is an ineffective form of punishment that is based on outdated ideas. The effectiveness of death penalty indeed is a debatable issue that has elicited a lot of debate in many fields of study including in Ethics, Law, Criminology and Ethics. In this paper I have argued that death penalty is an ineffective form of punishment. The opponents of my view contend that death punishment deters crime. One of the arguments adduced to support this view is the argument that, by killing a criminal convicted of a crime of high magnitude such as murder or rape, the criminal will have no other opportunity to commit the crime again (Maulsby, 28). It is also argued that by punishing criminals guilty of grave crimes through capital punishment, the punishment serves as a lesson to other potential criminals, thus instilling fear to many potential criminals thereby preventing them from committing similar crimes in future. To refute this argument, I would argue that the idea that death penalty deters crime is a mere presumption that has no scientific basis at all. To support my argument, I would argue that many studies have shown that there is no correlation, at all, between death penalty and crime rate; many studies have shown that death penalty does not reduce the rate of crimes in the society (Goel, 208). I would also argue that many of the people who are convicted of crimes of high magnitude that deserve death punishment have psychological and sociological problems and killing them, therefore, will not prevent commission of more crimes of the same nature because death punishment will not make people not to have psychological and social disorders. For that reason, therefore, I would argue that death punishment is an inhuman and meaningless punishment that is not effective in preventing crimes. The advocates of death punishment also contend that death punishment is the most effective form of punishment form of punishment for grave crimes because it ensures that justice has been rendered to both the offender and the offended parties (Burleigh, chapter 1). The reasoning here is that since grave crimes is an extra-ordinarily big injustice to those who are offended, it is only an extra-ordinarily form of punishment that can compensate for the grave crime committed or that can ensure that the offended parties have obtained justice. For that reason, therefore, proponents of this view contend that death penalty ensures that justice has been rendered to both the offender and the offended parties. To repute this view, I would argue that death penalty does not render justice to either the offender or the offended party(s). This is because by killing the offender, the offended party does not get back what was deprived from them. Again, it is debatable whether death, indeed, is the gravest form of punishment that can be meted out on an individual. In our experiences we have seen people committing suicide when they are faced with difficult challenges in life. This fact shows that death may not be the gravest form of punishment that can be subjected to an individual; death to some people may be a form of solace, rather than the gravest of punishments as presumed by the proponents of death penalty. This fact shows that death penalty does not actually render justice to the offenders. Consequently, I would argue that death penalty does not ensure that justice has been rendered to either the offender or the offended parties as presumed by the proponents of death penalty. This fact shows that this argument is flimsy, and not based on facts. The advocates of death penalty also contend that death penalty is an effective form of punishment because it prevents overpopulation in prisons, and prevents criminals guilty of grave crimes from committing crimes while in prisons, or escaping from prisons and committing criminals outside the prison environment. The proponents of this view contend that jailing the many criminals guilty of grave crimes will make the prisons to be over-populated; this in effect will have some negative consequences to the prisoners. Overpopulation of prisons will also pose some managerial challenges to the government that runs the prisons. For instance, from the economic point of view, it is very expensive to run overpopulated prisons. The advocates of this view also argue that the criminals convicted of grave crimes can continue to commit crimes outside the prison through collaborating with their accomplices outside the prison via the various means of communication like phone or the internet (emails or social-media); the criminals guilty of crimes can also cause crimes while in prison by harming their fellow prisoners, the murderers for instance can murder their fellow prisoners. Also, it is quite possible for the criminals guilty of grave crimes to escape from the prisons and commit crimes outside the prison environment. In opposition to this view, I would argue that, although jailing criminals guilty of grave crimes may give the criminals some possibilities of committing some further crimes, with proper preventive measures in place, however, the possibility of the prisoners committing more crimes is quite minimal. Most importantly, considering the negative effects that death penalty has on the family of the executed prisoner, death penalty cannot be justified solely on the fact that jailing the prisoners gives the prisoners some possibilities of committing some more crimes. Death penalty, actually, causes intense grief and distress to the executed criminal’s family. By inhumanly separating an offender from their family members, death penalty denies, for instance, the children of the executed person the opportunity to be with their beloved parents; for that reason, death penalty involving parents hinders complete and happy life of the offender’s children. Considering this fact, therefore, the government must put in place appropriate measures to ensure that the criminals in prisons have no chance of committing more crimes; proper preventive measure will ensure that criminals are prevented from either committing crimes while in prison, or breaking from the prison and committing crimes outside the prisons. To solve the problem of extra expenses in running overpopulated prisons, the government must ensure that the prisoners are self-sustaining, through engaging in income generating projects. This in effect will save the families of the criminals the intense pain and grief that they would have to go through for losing loved ones through death penalty. The proponents of death penalty also contend that death penalty is an effective form of punishment because it provides a sense of closure to the victims of the grave crime. Some grave crimes such as murder leave the relatives and the friends of the murdered person in deep pain and grief. Although the execution of the murderer will not restore the life of the murdered person, the execution, however, will give the victims of the murder some sense of closure in that the victims will no longer have to think much about the painful crime. With the perpetrator of grave crimes like murder being alive, the victims of the crime will have to think about the crime for quite a long time. In opposition to this view, I would argue that, although death penalty may, of course, provide some sense of closure to the victims of some grave crimes, death penalty, however, is not the only and the best form of punishment that ensures that the victims of grave crimes have a sense of closure. In some forms of grave crimes, for instance, in some cases of murder, monetary compensation to the victims of murder by the murderer may bring more relief and sense of closure to the murder victims than the execution of the murderer. For example, in a case of murder involving the death of a parent of some young children, death penalty will not provide much relief to the victims of the crime. This is because the relatives of the bereaved children will have, in most cases, to resume the responsibility of meeting the economic needs of the young children as they grow up. This in essence will make the bereaved relatives and the bereaved children to remember the painful murder incident whenever the children will be in financial needs. In this kind of murder, therefore, forcing the murderer to compensate the bereaved children in monetary form, coupled with subjecting the murderer to life imprisonment without parole will provide more relief and sense of closure to the bereaved relatives than execution of the murderer. The relatives of the murdered person will feel a sense of relief in knowing that, although the murderer killed the parent of the young children, the murder, however, did not make the life of the bereaved children miserable; the bereaved relatives also will feel a sense of closure to know that the murder is serving life imprisonment without parole. This fact, therefore, shows that death penalty does not guarantee relief and a sense of closure to the bereaved relatives. For this reason, therefore, the argument that death penalty is an effective form of punishment because it provides a sense of closure to the victims of the crime is a false and baseless argument. In the final analysis, the proponents of death penalty must concede that their views are based on presumptuous and out-dated ideas that have no basis in reality. A critical and unbiased analysis of the arguments for the proponents of death penalty shows that none of the arguments is based on fact. Consequently, it is quite clear that death penalty is not an effective form of punishment. References Bedau, H. The Case Against Death Penalty. Web. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Web. Burleigh, C.C. (1845). Thoughts on Capital Punishment.USA, Philadelphia: Merrihew & Thomson. Web. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433075963532. Goel, V. (208). ‘’Capital Punishment: A human Right Case Study and Jurisprudence’’. International NGO journal .vol.3 (9), pp. 152-161, September. Maulsby, D. (1893).‘’ The Death Penalty’’ .February 1. Vol. 55. USA: American Advocates of Peace. Web. Google Books. Read More