Even though the murderer deserves the same treatment to do justice to the victim, the death penalty should still not apply to him. Capital punishment is considered the practice of sentencing a person to death as punishment for a crime committed (Frankis, 2019). The death penalty is usually applied to individuals who have committed treason, child rape, murder, drug trafficking, terrorism, and genocide. The abolition of the death penalty has not been very effective, and many countries still practice the death penalty. The death penalty should not be applied as a method of punishmenet because many people sentenced to death are often found innocent after a critical examination of sufficient evidence in the case, so the death penalty should not be used as it is a cruel act and does not deter crime.
The death penalty is considered a cruel and inhuman act that undermines the principles of the right to life. A death sentence is not an act of justice but rather an act of vengeance and injustice. Once a person is placed in the appropriate cell, it often takes a long time before the execution is carried out, and the condemned person is constantly subjected to torture, ill-treatment, and ill-treatment and denied social benefits such as food or water. Such actions deprive a person of the right to human dignity because they are cruel and make a person look like an animal (Frankis, 2019). The methods used to conduct the death penalty, including injection, gas chamber, hanging, and electrocution, are inhumane because they subject the person to extreme and excruciating conditions of pain. Such conditions can only be applied to inanimate beings who do not have souls since torture brings psychological shocks to living beings who have souls. Killing criminals not only violates the right to life but also deprives them of the opportunity to defend themselves (Frankis, 2019). Often, innocent people are executed during fake rounds. They are unable to defend themselves later when the evidence is found because it is an irreversible and inhumane act.
Due to the irreversibility of the death penalty as a legal sentence, there is an increasing body of literature on the subject as well as ongoing public interest in it. It is not feasible to overturn an innocent defendant’s execution, unlike other judicial sentences. Recent studies, however, point to several instances when innocent persons have been wrongfully found guilty of murder and sentenced to death row as a result of dishonest police enforcement and court personnel, prejudiced juries, or ineffective attorneys. Accordingly, “In March 2000, Governor George Ryan imposed a moratorium on executions in Illinois while appointing a commission to recommend reforms to ensure that the state’s executions are fair, just, and accurate” (Adinkrah & Clemens, 2018). Many states, including Arizona, California, Indiana, Nebraska, and North Carolina, have also suggested thorough reforms of their death penalty systems and moratoria in response to the moratorium, which has affected the national discussion on the death penalty in those states and others. Several studies have found clear evidence of enduring racial prejudice in the American death sentence system. The death sentence for convicted murderers is still enforced in the United States, which is now thought to be the only Western industrialized nation to do so. In this way, it is significant that fewer states now enforce the death sentence than did so in 2000 (Adinkrah & Clemens, 2018). Such a tendency is a result of a decline in state-level crime rates.
The majority of the literature on the death sentence that has been evaluated generally focused on how long it takes to abolish it. In essence, it will take years or millennia. The 1980s, when the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR was created, was the pivotal period in the drive to abolish the death sentence (Mostyn, 2021). The latest substantial modifications to the UN drug treaties had a ten-year deadline. As more and more individuals were being put to death for drug-related offenses at the time, the world started to become more conscious of the issue. Australia played a global role in the abolition of the death penalty in the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (Mostyn, 2021). Efforts to abolish the death penalty should be measured in centuries, not decades. Established norms in international law are complex.
Representatives of society who support the death penalty testify that it is the only way to retaliate for murder. Therefore, it is believed that the death penalty is an effective punishment in proportion to the type of crime committed, and therefore it is fair. Supporters of the death penalty believe that the justice system should include an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, assigning the same degree of pain to the criminal as the victim (Howells, 2018). ). Their key argument is that the only way to instill in society that murder is an intolerable crime is to avenge the victim without showing any justice or compassion in the judgment. Proponents also believe that killing a person affects a balance of justice that can only be restored by taking the killer’s life (Howells, 2018). They believe that the death penalty is an equitable sentence and is the only way to bring peace to the victims and society.
However, the argument that the death penalty is a way to retaliate for murder is not valid and can be refuted. A large number of crimes are often motivated by anger, mental problems, guilt, or anger, so the death penalty will not teach a lesson in such cases (Frankis, 2019). For example, imposing the death penalty on people with mild mental disabilities would not be considered retribution. Almost one-fourth of those executed in the US over an eight-year period had a history of having their mental illness either recognized or treated, according to Joyce Frieden, a News Editor for MedPage Today (Frieden, 2020). The state of Ohio executed a man with schizophrenia in 2001. According to Rebecca Beitsch of PBS News Hour, “Legislators in at least seven states — Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia — have proposed bills this year to prohibit the death penalty for people who had a serious mental illness at the time of their crime.” (Beitsch, 2017). Executing a patient who is mentally ill is against the law.
Such actions make society a dangerous place for them to live as they will become potential victims of the death penalty. Thus, two wrongs do not make a right, and killing a murderer will not bring the murderer back to life. This method of punishment is not actual revenge since the murderer will not live to see the consequences of his actions. Moreover, the death penalty is not considered a form of retribution due to the increased delay in execution. According to statistics, convicts wait on death row for up to eight years before execution (Frankis, 2019). A more significant number of these convicts die from other health complications as well as from old age (Frankis, 2019). Therefore, such people cannot learn the lesson because they die without being punished but from other causes.
In conclusion, given the above reasons, the death penalty should be abolished because it is an ineffective, cruel, and inhuman punishment. The methods used to carry out the death penalty are extremely cruel, as they subject a person to unbearable conditions and make him feel great pain. This is considered an irrevocable denial of human rights because it deprives a person of the right to defend himself in the event of wrongful conviction. This method also deprives a person of their right to dignity because of the way they are treated on death row as they await their execution. The death penalty should be abolished by the country because it does not deter crime. This method only increases the level of crime. The claim by proponents that a death penalty is a form of retribution is false. The reason is that this method makes people with mental disabilities victims of punishment, and most criminals die unpunished. Given the above reasons, the death penalty is not an effective method of punishment and should be abolished not only in various states of the United States but also in various countries around the world where it is still practiced.
References
Adinkrah, M., & Clemens, W. M. (2018). To reinstate or to not reinstate? An exploratory study of student perspectives on the death penalty in Michigan. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(1), 229–252. Web.
Beitsch, R. (2017). Should states ban the death penalty for people with severe mental illness? PBS NewsHour. Web.
Frankis, D. (2019). Capital punishment in the UK was abolished in 1965, but the Death Penalty was a legally defined punishment until 1998. 50 Facts Everyone Should Know about Crime & Punishment, 17–20. Web.
Frieden, J. (2020). Some prisoners executed despite mental illness diagnosis. Medpagetoday.com. Web.
Howells, C. (2018). The death penalty and its exceptions. Deconstructing the Death Penalty, 87–98. Web.
Mostyn, B. (2021). Deadly serious: The United Nations, drugs, and capital punishment in the 1980s. International Journal of Drug Policy, 103167. Web.