Introduction
Executing a person as a form of justice for a crime he has committed is known as capital punishment. The execution of a criminal is a legal action conducted by the state as a form of retribution. The death penalty is a topic of intense debate at the national and international levels based on moral and humanitarian reasons. This essay explores the use of the death penalty as a sanction and punishment for significant offenses. Researchers look at its history, benefits, and drawbacks to assess if the death penalty is still suitable and relevant in today’s society. A brief survey of the record revealed that while the death penalty was frequently used in ancient and medieval civilizations, it is now rarely used in modern democracies. Arguments that people should be punished according to their crimes and that this type of punishment ensures that criminals will not do their heinous acts again are the most frequently cited arguments in favor of death sentences.
The Death Penalty
The morality of capital punishment, particularly when considering the right to take away a human being’s life, has been the subject of intense debate among many people. According to Rade et al., people who had a clear conception of God and strongly believed in compassion were less likely to embrace the death penalty (2017). There are many different opinions on whether or not the death penalty is appropriate and the circumstances that should justify it. The core argument against the death punishment is that different perspectives advanced by various theories or schools of thought in ethical studies undercut the morality of the death sentence. According to Subhajit, it has become a debated subject in the legal system where human rights are routinely abused; for instance, murder is considered terrible and unethical (2021). Overall, certain aspects might be regarded as right or wrong depending on the situation. In most circumstances, killing is justifiable for self-defense or the greater welfare of society, such as to prevent further harm to innocent civilians, but killing someone intentionally is wrong.
General offender punishment is determined by several factors, including deterrence and defense, which aim to keep offenders from committing crimes again, and retribution, which considers the penalty to be what criminal offenders deserve. According to Johnson, there has been significant progress toward the global abolition of the death penalty, and there are solid grounds for optimism that this trend will continue (2019). At the same time, restoration seeks to mend the relationship between the offender, the victim, and society. The people and organizations who favor the death penalty focus their cases on retribution, deterrence, and defense while neglecting restoration because it is impractical once execution has occurred. “The morality of punishment rests upon theories of deterrence, retribution, just deserts, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and most recently, restorative justice” (Banks, 2018). Some arguments have been made in favor of the death penalty. However, the issue differs from nation to nation depending on the political foundation or foundations.
However, this is unethical because killing the criminal offender also involves depriving them of their life, which is morally wrong, and two wrongs do not create a right. The death sentence demonstrates respect for the victims and the rest of society, according to another rationale in favor of the death penalty. This is because it speeds up the victim’s healing process and comforts them and their loved ones. The notion and perception that there should be justice is another justification for those who favor the death penalty since they feel that to ensure equal justice, one life should cost another, and so on.
Other innocent people who might become victims in the future if other potential punishments are provided to the offenders are seen to be prevented by the death sentence since they would eventually assimilate into society. The death penalty’s supporters also contend that because it is less brutal than other sentences, which are frequently protracted and cause the offenders to suffer for lengthy periods, it is advantageous to the criminals in some ways. The existence of the law is another solid argument in favor of it. Comparing the cost of housing a prisoner against the cost of executing criminal offenders, detaining a prisoner for life is also deemed uneconomical. The proponents also contend that there are times when killing is acceptable, such as when it is done in self-defense. This is true because the circumstances leading up to the killing typically differ in some way, unlike when a criminal murders an innocent person. When a person is killed in self-defense, the victim is not apparent. Supporters of the death penalty also contend that since murderers are not harmless, murdering them is equivalent to killing in self-defense, which justifies the death penalty.
The people and organizations opposed to the death penalty base their views on different things, and it is not used in most countries. For example, in western Europe, where it is seen as outdated and a relic of the past, there is very little public support for its revival. The following are some general objections to the use of the death sentence. The main contention is that the death penalty includes denying someone their right to life since it requires murder, which has never been morally acceptable because it involves violating the right to life. The suffering and pain that criminal offenders endure if given the death penalty is also excessive and is regarded as wrong and unethical because it results in a great deal of physical and, more importantly, emotional suffering that is wrong regardless of the offenders’ crimes committed. Statistics have also demonstrated that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent because the states that support and carry it out have not seen any noticeable declines in violent crime (Snell, 2017). Therefore, it is more moral to use other types of sentencing than the death penalty because it will prevent killing, which is immoral.
Execution is not ethically correct or ethical for the executors or those involved in the act because it impacts them psychologically and, in some cases, may change how they view life’s challenges because they may not value life as they should. The expense of the death penalty is typically more than that of a trial and life in prison, which is why those who oppose it believe that it is not only unethical but also uneconomic. As opposed to the death penalty, other methods of deterring criminal behavior are also encouraged, such as education campaigns, which are more successful at stopping others from engaging in the same behavior. The chance of murdering the innocent is also very great, and the fact that once a life is lost, it cannot be recovered only makes the practice even more morally repugnant and immoral. The argument against the death penalty is better made by those who are against it. Even in circumstances where criminal offenders are put to death, the fact that murder is regarded as a crime should always stand because killing and taking human life are both wrong and immoral.
My opinion of the death penalty is that it is unethical because killing is wrong. After all, it violates the victim’s human right to life regardless of whether the person killed has committed a crime. This is true regardless of the circumstances or the factors that enable the offenders to be involved in serious crimes, especially murder. Even criminal killers deserve to live and should not have their lives taken away since they still value human life despite their criminal behavior. Since most people executed after investigations have been proven innocent, the possibility and likelihood of implementing innocent people also make the situation look exceedingly unjust. It is likewise not acceptable to kill as retaliation for someone else’s involvement in the murder.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the death penalty is a contentious topic since different individuals have different opinions on whether it is morally appropriate. The ethical and theological perspectives frequently diverge because depriving someone of their right to life is regarded as evil or sinful, regardless of the circumstances. The drive to abolish the death penalty is gaining momentum, although most countries still reserve it as a punishment for crimes considered to be heinous. However, the death penalty is highly contentious because both sides of the debate base their arguments on the same fundamental principles, which include the pursuit of justice and respect for human life. Those in favor of it contend that there should be justice and respect for the victims. In contrast, those opposed claim that fairness and consideration should be provided to criminals by imposing sentences other than the death penalty, which robs them of their lives.
References
Banks, C. (2018). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Johnson, D. T. (2019). A Factful Perspective on Capital Punishment. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 11(2), pp. 334–345. Web.
Rade, C. B., Holland, A. M., Gregory, J. B., & Desmarais, S. L. (2017). A systematic review of religious affiliations and beliefs as correlates of public attitudes toward capital punishment. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(1), 63-85. Web.
Snell, T. L. (2017). Capital Punishment, 2014–2015. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Web.
Subhajit, S. (2021). Whether Capital Punishment Should Be Abolished or Not? International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 4(5), pp. 172-174. Web.