The Death Penalty Should Be Used when Necessary - Coursework Example

The death penalty should be used when necessary Introduction The death penalty imposes a number of costly political, social, as well as economic implications in countries that advocate for the capital punishment. Consequent to this, most countries in the world do not advocate for the use of this penalty. Russia, for example, does not use the penalty, despite its renowned history of bloodshed. Turkey also abolished the penalty, and The People’s Republic of China intends to use the punishment with extreme caution in the future. However, the United States, Japan, and Korea still use the death penalty in executing criminals. This deters the ability of the United States, for example, to fight terrorism appropriately, as many countries oppose the use of death penalty in curbing crime (Wilkins, 1). Consequent to this, the following discussion shows the negative effects of the death penalty, which means that the punishment should be used only in exceptional cases. Negative impacts of the death penalty Impact of death penalty on the victim’s families Family members of the victims of murdered people go through an agonizing time in life as they try to cope with the traumatic experience g faced by their loved one. This causes them a lot of psychological torture as they try to live with the method used to punish one of them. Therefore, the death penalty causes more harm to the innocent members of the family. It exposes innocent people to a life long period of grief, which could even affect their productivity in other spheres of life. More to this, the penalty makes the family of the victim feel alienated from the rest of the society. They develop shame in their lives as they see the government, which ought to protect them, destroy their very own. The punishment also leads to divisions in the family as some members may advocate for the penalty, while others oppose it. This leads to family breakdown, and a destruction of the unity which families should hold at all times, especially in such times (king, 3). Following an interview with a family member of a victim of death penalty, life gets very difficult after executing the criminal (Rachael). Feelings of hatred develop towards the society, and the individual prefers to keep away from the rest of the community, who did not help in fighting for the life of the victim. Therefore, this punishment extends to the innocent, and it should be abolished. Impact of the death penalty on children Given the inability of young children to distinguish between the good and the evil, use of death penalty exposes them to a culture that advocates killing as a method of solving problems. Such an attitude impacts negatively on young children, leading to a dysfunctional society (King, 1) Impact on the offended families The death penalty consists of a series of trials, which take long before they get concluded. These trials lead to the reopening of wounds, thus making it difficult for those offended to heal quickly, thus move on with their lives. Therefore, the punishment seeks to instill greater harm on the offended party, instead of providing the offended persons with a suitable environment for their recovery. Non-deterrence of crime Research shows that the use of capital punishment does not deter crimes in any way, as opposed to such measures as long periods in prison (Wallis, 1). This follows evidence from states that do not use the death penalty compared to those that advocate for the use of the death penalty. States that do not use the death penalty record less murder rates, unlike those states that use the penalty to punish offenders (“Death Penalty Focus”, 1). Death penalty misconceptions According to Wallis (1), killing people does not depict a respect for humanity. It does not indicate the need to preserve life, but serves to show that destroying life can be permitted. Therefore, the punishment adds a mistake on another mistake, instead of proving to the violators that no human life deserves to be taken away. In addition to this, most of the people who face death charges are not represented well in courts, thus denying them of their human dignity. This follows their inability to finance competent lawyers who can assist in fighting for their freedom in court. Consequently, the state should provide such victims with lawyers who can represent them professionally in court as they also deserve a fair trial. More to these, capital punishment may lead to the execution of innocent people as DNA tests have proven some of the death row inmates to be innocent. The punishment also gets biased along racial lines as most of the people on the death row are blacks, and the whites in such situations rarely get executed. Economic reasons The death penalty uses numerous resources in executing criminals. Hundreds of dollars get spent on the equipment used to execute the criminals, without any return s on such dollars. Consequent to this, the process uses extensive resources to kill people, which do not yield tangible benefits to the society. On the other hand, using such dollars on methods that seek to prevent crime, and increase services that can help in reforming criminals can result in greater advantages to the economy. This follows the ability to provide criminals, and potential criminals with, such services as, educational opportunities, and vocational skill, which gives them an opportunity to contribute to economic development. Keeping criminals in prison for the rest of their life also serves as a more economical way of dealing with crime, as opposed to the death penalty. International views on death penalty Most countries in the world do not execute criminals using the death penalty. Instead of this, they use alternative ways that concur with the universal declaration of human rights. According to article 3 of this declaration, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” (“Death Penalty Focus”, 1). Consequently, imposing capital punishment infringes on the human rights that criminals possess. Criminals are also human beings, and they should be accorded their due respect, in spite of the crimes they may have committed. Therefore, offenders should be protected by law, and alternative means of punishing them for their wrongs imposed. Use of the death penalty Using the death penalty as one of the ways of deterring crimes helps the society in eliminating people who cause havoc. The punishment ensures that the offender gets what he deserves as breaking the law should not be tolerated. Therefore, the penalty can be used in a situation where the offender commits subsequent crimes on humanity, and does not intend on changing his criminal life as evidenced by the case of Saddam Hussein Mohammed (Cranmer, & Jean, 85). Saddam was responsible for causing massive suffering, and he violated the rights of many human beings. More to this, the penalty satisfies the need for vengeance felt by the offended party. They get a satisfaction of having being compensated for the wrong done to them, unlike when the offender goes free. Therefore, the death penalty plays a significant role in retribution as the offended party gets to appreciate that the government values their life (Semple, 1). Conclusion In conclusion, the death penalty imposes numerous negative implications. It does not seem to deter crime, and it causes a lot of suffering to people. The chronic agony that families involved in such crimes go through can be averted, using alternative methods, which yield greater benefits. Life imprisonment, for example, provides benefits that are more economical to the society. Additionally, using dollars used in executing death to establish schools that give at risk children an opportunity to access an education that can keep them from crime, results in a better society. However, using the death penalty to punish extreme criminals also aids the society in deterring notorious criminals. Consequently, the death penalty should only be used in critical situations. Works Cited Cranmer, Pam. & Jean, Nhemachena. Ethics for Nurses: Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw Hill Education, 2013. Print. (Book). Death Penalty Focus. Working for alternatives to the death penalty: International Views on the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Focus. Web < http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=81> King, Rachel. The Impact of Capital Punishment on Families of Defendants and Murder Victims’ Family Members. Judicature 89 (2006): 5. Print. (Journal). Rachael, Roberts. Interview: Life Experience after Losing a Family Member to a Death Penalty. Personal interview, (2014). (Interview). Semple, Kirk. Middle East: Saddam Hussein is Sentenced to Death. The New York Times, 2006. Web < http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/world/middleeast/05cnd-saddam.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0> (Newspaper) Wallis, Jim. It’s Time to End the Death Penalty. Sojourners Faith in Action for Social Justice, (2013). (Magazine). Wilkins, William. The Legal, Political, and Social Implications of the Death Penalty. University of Richmond Law Review 41 (2007): 4. Print. (Journal) Read More