The Death Penalty: Pros and Cons - Essay Example

The Death Penalty: Pros and Cons That You Need to Evaluate

Proponents of the death punishment make arguments in defence of their views, most of which were put forward in society many years and centuries ago. Since the death penalty precludes the retribution of crimes, such a punishment serves as a protection for a society that has the right to self-defence across people in different states. Society has the right to take the life of someone who took the life of the other; otherwise, the Lynch court may take effect.

A number of speakers touched on the problem of public opinion. Public opinion polls show that more than 80% of citizens have a negative attitude towards the abolition of the death penalty. You can use these data in different ways: ignore them, use them for snobbish conclusions about the immaturity of public legal consciousness, etc.

However, let us return to the idea of ​​humanism as determining many of our punishment decisions. With tens of thousands of premeditated murders in our country, about a hundred culprits, sometimes a little more, are subjected to an exceptional sentence of one year in most of the states. This is done by the courts selectively, taking into account exceptional circumstances. Isn't this humanism?

There are people who cannot be corrected, and the application of the death penalty to them is a forced capital measure. Another argument is that the maintenance of a criminal requires considerable budget funds, which negatively affects public opinion. American criminologist W. Reclass formulated 4 main provisions in defence of the death penalty in the states as the retribution for crimes:

• compliance with the punishment of the crime, the principle of talion;
• punishment as atonement for guilt, criminals must suffer to atone for his sin;
• punishment, as intimidation of others, reminds that the same thing can happen to them if they break the law;
• punishment as protection of the interests of society.

Another American forensic scientist E. Sutherland formulated 5 following reasons:

• capital punishment is a more effective means of preventing crime than other types of punishment;
• it is more economical than imprisonment;
• it is necessary to prevent the lynching of the offender;
• the death penalty frees society from defective individuals;
• it is more secure than life imprisonment for persons convicted of premeditated murder, because the latter may be amnestied according to the law in different states as retribution.

Winston Churchill, who served as minister in the 1940s, said that while he respected those wishing to abolish the death penalty and replace it with lifetime imprisonment, the measure was not more humane because it "dooms many years of horrific suffering" the minds and souls of those to whom they wished to do good." One cannot disagree with this statement. It is not yet known what is more humane - the death penalty or life imprisonment. There are also many cases of suicide of prisoners who were sentenced to commute the death penalty to lifelong imprisonment.

As the retribution for criminals, the death penalty in the United States, of course, cannot have the purpose of correcting the perpetrator but performs the task of restoring social justice and preventing the commission of crimes by the convicts themselves and other unstable criminals. Of course, most people will demand the execution of such a criminal, because the power of anger in people is great. You can summarize and highlight the main points "for" the death penalty:

• The death penalty is just retribution for criminals; it is a moral act, as it is used as capital punishment for murder.
• The death penalty has a terrifying effect that helps prevent the same crimes.
• The death penalty is, to some extent good for society by freeing it from very dangerous criminals.
• The death penalty can be justified by humane considerations in relation to the person who committed the crime, as lifetime imprisonment, opacity, unbearably severe imprisonment in solitary confinement is much worse than rapid death.
• The death penalty is the easiest and cheapest way to get rid of a criminal and provide the retribution.

However, from an ethical point of view, such arguments will never justify a person's death. Opponents of the death penalty put forward a variety of arguments in defence of their position. The chairman of the Royal Commission on the Death Penalty in England, Ernst Gowers, puts forward a number of arguments against this punishment:

• The death penalty is a denial of the principle of punishment, the main content of which is to correct and impose fair retribution.
• The death penalty and the execution of sentences has a demoralizing effect on society and sometimes leads to the commission of the same crimes in the order of imitation.
• Jurors in the states often do not find defendants guilty because they do not want to sentence them to death.
• The execution of a death sentence has a detrimental effect on the perpetrators and other prisoners;
• Waiting for the execution of the sentence is psychological torture, and the execution of the sentence imposes an eternal and undeserved stain on the relatives of the convict.

In addition to these main theses, there are other opinions on this subject. The death penalty is evidence of certain costs of society, which itself is to blame for the appearance of murderers, rapists, traitors, and other dangerous criminals. All the forces of society must be aimed at preventing crimes, at creating a healthy, normal environment in all spheres of our reality.

Another strong argument, by analogy with medicine: "Why are doctors forbidden even in the event of fatal illness to stop the suffering of the dying? After all, this seems to be the most humane thing a doctor can do? Because suddenly a person recovers? Medicine understands that it is not yet omnipotent and omniscient. Here you can find an analogy with the death penalty. Suddenly a person will recover? And if not? Where is the guarantee that a fierce criminal will dedicate the rest of his life to repentance? In addition, there are frequent cases of suicide among the terminally ill. There is also controversy over euthanasia, many of which require its legal introduction with the consent of the patient.

Both proponents and opponents of the death penalty cite financial considerations in support of their views. Proponents argue that it is easier and cheaper to kill a convict. Another negative aspect of the death penalty is the existence of the institution of executioners, i.e. legal killers.

There are the following ethical arguments against the “lawful” death in the United States:

• Capital punishment is moral-liberating in human beings. The fact of the manifestation of the death penalty is confirmed by the thought that it is possible to drive into a seemingly fair, by good right. The people of the world will express the motive of the people themselves by the guards of justice and the rule of justice.
• Capital punishment is an anti-legal act. Such a punishment is a sign of indivisibility, liquidity, and the very right of law.
• Capital punishment is unfair and deceitful to the fact that, over there, the inter-competence of people will be destroyed. People do not have mastery over their lives. The living being with the mind of all people’s rights and guilty’ does not have the right to judge whether there are any winnings and even more about the fact that there is a lot of wrongdoing.
• Capital punishment is a sweep of the fundamental moral principle of self-esteem of human specialities, and holiness. Capital execution is pretended to be a hoax to bring to suspension a little thought, no more than driving in a human being; we shall cherish the right.

So, reviewing the death penalty: pros and cons, we should consider how the attitude to such a capital measure has been changed since the very beginning of the human civilization and formation of the states. The right for life is basic in the community of people driven by the triggers of humanism, so the legal killing should be abolished.