Throughout history, communities have practiced execution as a traditional punishment for law offenders. The approach was used for individuals who committed heinous crimes such as murder and treason as a lesson to other society members who might follow in the same footstep. The emergence of civilization and human rights led to abolishing the punitive methods of punishment, although some communities still practice them for religious and political practices. Despite the abolishment and decline of the practice, capital punishment was introduced as a standardized method of justice against offenders who commit significant felonies. The mode of justice has evoked severe discussions on its morality and effects on society since its establishment. This essay explores the justification and opposing arguments of capital murder as a legal form of criminal justice and under the constitution giving personal views on the topic.
Capital punishment, commonly referred to as the death penalty, is an institutionalized form of criminal justice that entails executing an individual deliberately when the person is found guilty. The execution occurs after trials where the justice system concludes that the suspect is guilty of the accused crimes, which warrant death as punishment. For instance, felonies that can lead to capital punishment include arson, terrorism, treason, murder, and espionage. Despite the cruelty of the punishment, some people deem it an effective and ethical approach to punishing individuals with significant felonies.
Supporters of capital punishment argue that it is an effective method of retribution and deterrence against further crime. If a criminal is found guilty, they deserve the punishment as retribution and a lesson to others thinking of committing the same crimes. Crimes such as terrorism and murder warrant capital punishment as retribution because they involve deaths. According to the argument, a life should be paid by another life to demonstrate the severity of the crime. Likewise, when others on the same path feel the impact of the felonies, they may change their ways leading to a decline and possible end of the felonies. At the same time, executing the criminal can save lives since they will not be able to harm others directly or by influencing a criminal activity. Thus, killing directly or indirectly should be punished by the execution of the offender, which preserves moral order, protects citizens, and passes a message to other criminals.
Despite convincing reasons for capital punishment, many consider the act morally wrong. Opposers argue that capital punishment is an unjust approach to punishment that promotes inhumane practices that can affect individuals socially, psychologically, and emotionally. Although those in support argue that it is a way of retribution, the killing goes against ethical and biblical norms and values of life. The death penalty is irreversible once carried out, which diminishes the essence of justice if the person is proven not guilty at some point, making it a judicial crime. Conversely, the punishment can lead to social and economic biases where those convicted may have inadequate resources for defense, leading to wrongful convictions. Notably, racial biases are common among criminals facing capital punishment, where an individual from a minority group is more likely to face execution than those from the majority population.
From the arguments, I believe that capital punishment is an unjust and morally wrong method of punishing felonies. Regardless of the severity of a crime, killing violates the dignity and value of human life since all lives are sacred. Biblically, God is the giver and taker of life, and killing can be seen as disobedience and a challenge to God’s authority. Capital punishment is a form of vengeance instead of retribution, making it unethical and unreliable. As an irreversible action, the death penalty can result in the execution of innocents, which is unfair since it cuts short their lives and dreams. At the same time, it may anger individuals into committing additional crimes to avenge the death of their loved ones and kin, which opposes the ideology of deterrence. Therefore, despite the argument of deterrence and retribution, capital punishment has more adverse effects than gains to society and should be amended to promote justice.