Should the Death Penalty be Banned?
Introduction
The death penalty has been a controversial topic in America for a long time now. While the practice is considered legal in over thirty states, it has still instigated heated disputes among abolitionists and proponents (Sethuraju, Sole, & Oliver par 1). While it has been abolished in many countries, some still practice it. The death penalty is cruel, and the state should not have the right to kill fellow human beings, despite the crime. People imposing the crime are clearly committing the same crime, leaving us to wonder if they too should be executed. The main objective of the death penalty is to minimize or eliminate repugnant felonies. There is no evidence, however, claiming that this has been successful. Its ineffectiveness is undoubtedly clear, as assessed by the increasing rate of crime. The death penalty has not only stripped us of our humanity, but it has also not prevented crime, why it should be banned. Ideally, more focus should be directed to rehabilitating prisoners.
Background of the Death Penalty
The death penalty is incontrovertibly an excruciating denial of civil liberties and proves the inconsistency in the state values and how broken the system is. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has existed since the early sixteen’s. According to Marcus, the first criminal execution in America happened in Virginia in 1622 (Marcus 838). Most of the twentieth century allowed the execution of convicted felonies. The death penalty was extended to not just the murder crime but any offence including arson, armed robbery, burglary, rape, and possession of weapons, specifically firearms or any violent related crime. Male offenders were and still are the most victims as compared to the female gender. During this practice, various techniques were used; electrocution, which started in 1888, hanging, public shooting, the use of lethal gas or poisonous injections (Marcus 839). The Supreme Court, in 1972, under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments reversed the death penalty (ACLU par 4). However, following this law, hundreds of people have been sentenced to death under the Supreme Court’s claim that “the punishment of death does not invariably violate the Constitution” (ACLU par 6). Deaths sentences were then resumed by 1977 and in the early two thousand’s dismissed the execution of mentally unstable people and also juveniles under the age of eighteen. Notably, since 1976, over
Four thousand people have been sentenced to death in America.
Inhumane.The death penalty is inhumane, basing on the barbaric practices used to execute people. Take for instance the methods used to execute people, for one, lethal injection; what they do not tell us is what it does to the body. The procedure includes three separate injections containing Sodium thiopental or pentobarbital, Pancuronium bromide and Potassium chloride. These are for rendering the person unconscious, relax the muscles causing paralysis and increase the heart beat causing cardiac arrest (ACLU par 86). Despite its simplicity, it is not as comfortable and easy as it sounds. In case the person is not fully unconscious, the pain is severe and can also cause the victim to suffer for a longer period before they die. Indeed, this is an unusual way of killing someone, not to mention the cruelty involved. There is claim, as stated by ACLU that the lethal injection method risks paralyzing a conscious person, who will feel every ounce of pain during the process, “a sentient witness of his or her own asphyxiation” (ACLU par 81). A case of John Evans proves the horrific procedure as narrated by a witness following an electrocution. He was subjected to the chair for fourteen minutes until he finally died. During the procedure, bolts of electricity ran through is body and were visibly seen as he clenched his fists on the electric chair. The smell of burnt flesh saturated the witness room as smoke emanated from his body. The procedure was repeated three times on ground that e was still alive even after he was declared dead. The incident is barbaric, cruel and unusual as the narrator claimed. Clemency was appealed for because of the cruel punishment but was denied.
Irreversible.The possibility of convicting and executing an innocent person is a concern; the sad truth is it cannot be taken back. On a number of occasions, convicts serving death sentences are subsequently released following doubts about their sentences. According to Sethuraju, Sole, & Oliver, over one hundred convicts were released from death row since 1973 after being vindicated (Sethuraju, Sole, & Oliver par 17). Undeniably, the rate of error during verdicts is exceedingly high. In case of new evidence, the punishment cannot be reversed, and the idea of compensating the family of the wrongfully accused deceased is melancholic. Notably, the death penalty is allied with the minors, like the African Americans, mentally unstable and the power. Habitually, these lack adequate representation, are discriminated against, or other circumstances that cause a denial of a fair trial. Even when they are not all innocent, every citizen and human being has a right and deserves a fair trial. With a broken system and inconsistency in the justice system, a capital punishment or death penalty is too severe and an irreversible retribution.
No crime deterrence.The death penalty does not deter or eliminate crime bearing in mind that it is the reason why it is practiced. According to Warden, the death penalty does not deter crime but even caused murders (Warden 330). He further analyzes a 1991 case of Ricardo Gill, an ex-con with a history of mental issues and suicidal inclinations. He pleaded guilty for murdering a travel agent and appealed for a death sentence, which was denied. Shortly, he murdered his cellmate by strangulation, pleaded guilty and threatened to kill again, if he was not sentenced to death; this time the judge granted his wish. Notably, if this insensitive penalty was minimized crime, murder and crime rates would be lower, but research shows that crime increases tremendously. ACLU pauses an argument asserting that the death penalty cannot deter crime because the criminals are already at risk of death while committing crimes (ACLU par 27). The argument is backed up by the example of drug dealers; these face numerous threats from competitors who are fellow drug dealers. They are aware of the risk involved, but it does not prevent them from drug trafficking. Therefore, thinking that death penalty will prevent them from dealing is irrational. Clearly, there is no evident that this method of penalty deters crime, yet states without the penalty have lower crime rates. Without doubt, this is a ruthless way to punish an individual. Why should it be practiced if it cannot reduce crime, if the damage caused is much higher than the benefits?
Concession and Refutation
On the contrary, the death penalty has opposing views in support of its administration. The first reason is retribution especially from the victims of the crime. Usually, this based on anger, pain and the feeling of loss that inspires revenge urges. They argue that this retribution should accorded to severe crimes especially murder, since it is what they deserve. In most cases, they believe that their suffering will be relieved, which is sadly not true. In opposition to the claim, rewarding murder with murder is an atrocious way of living. Does this require rapists to be raped, robbers to be robbed? Where does it end? It is perverse therefore to administer a crime to repay one. While it is understandable to severely punish an offender of a severe crime, the severity to the extent of death is beyond limit and should be dismissed without second thought!
Another common reason in support of the death penalty is that it deters crime. According to Sethuraju, Sole, & Oliver, executing murdering prevents other people from committing the same crime in future (Sethuraju, Sole, & Oliver par 27). Arguably, these people believe the procedure is more effective as compared to imprisonment for life. More so, incapacitation and maintaining law and order in society by using state violence and capital punishments to exert social control are other reasons given in support of the death penalty (Sethuraju, Sole, & Oliver par 13). People believe that if murderers are not eliminated, there is a high risk of committing the crime again. Further, life imprisonment convicts are later released from prison and are likely to seek vengeance or resume their traits. Regarding law and order, the opposition argues that imposing the punishment of criminals will instill caution and in turn lessen the crimes. However, as mentioned earlier, evidence has proven that despite the penalty, crimes increase daily. Further, incapacitation would be backed up by giving the convicts benefit of a doubt. While I do not believe that people change, everyone deserves a chance to recuperate their life. The death penalty strips humans of their humanity, are we any better than the criminals? There are clearly other ways to punish a convict who as committed a crime with taking one’s life. Severe crimes should be punished by criminals serving long sentences with facilitated rehabilitation. Indeed, this promises a better life for the convict and encourages positive behavior. The aim for rehabilitating is to lower the rate of repeating the offense and indeed a more benevolent way to handle convicts as opposed to the death penalty.
Conclusion
The death penalty should definitely be banned because of the reason stated above. It is inhumane, it is irreversible incase the convicted person is innocent and no evidence shows that it deters or eliminates crime. While opposing views claim otherwise, in the name of retribution, incapacitation and maintaining law and order, it is not reason enough to mercilessly take another person’s life. Unquestionably, this goes against our humanity, ironically makes us out to be the same criminals that are being convicted. Everyone despite the crime deserves a chance to live and rejuvenate their life, why rehabilitation is encouraged. With this in consideration, positive behavior among the convicts is possible, the chance of the crime being repeated is reduced.
Works Cited
ACLU. “The Case Against the Death Penalty.” American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 2020. Web. <https://www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-penalty>.
Marcus, Paul. “Capital Punishment in the United States, and Beyond.” William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository 31 (2007): 838-866. Web. <https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=facpubs>.
Sethuraju, Raj, Jason Sole, and Brian E. Oliver. “Understanding Death Penalty Support and Opposition Among Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Students.” SAGE Open 6.1 (2016): 215824401562495. Print.
Warden, Rob. “Reflections on Capital Punishment.” Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy 4.2 (2009): 329-359. Web. <https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=njlsp>.