Introduction
The given article argues that the death penalty should not be legally permissible because it does not deter or compensate for the loss experienced by the victim. The author states: “Even when the perpetrator is executed, it is not as though the pain of losing a loved one will suddenly dissipate” (The Crimson Editorial Board par. 5).
Discussion
In addition, the piece uses the Boston Marathon bombing as an example of death not being a deterrent since a perpetrator becomes a martyr encouraging such acts for others. In other words, the death penalty is not effective under restorative justice principles, and it is practically useless for deterring any radical ideological criminal.
However, the article’s central claims are problematic because the author imposes frameworks of restorative justice and ideological non-deterrence as arguments. The issue is that the current justice system is based on the principles of retributive justice, which is practiced all over the world, and it has been historically the only mode of the justice system. The death penalty acts as a deterrent to capital crimes, as the fear of death and the horror of the execution might prevent people from committing serious crimes, even if it might be ineffective against ideologists. Capital punishment provides closure for the families of the victims, and that punishment should fit the crime in order for justice to be served. Criminals who commit capital crimes have reached a point where rehabilitation is impossible, and life in prison might increase criminal behavior.
Conclusion
As a result, it prevents crimes from recurring and protects society. In a practical sense, the death penalty helps ease overpopulation in prisons since there is no justice if a victim of a horrific crime is supposed to use his or her taxes to feed and sustain the criminal.
Work Cited
The Crimson Editorial Board. “The Death Penalty is Wrong. Every Single Time.” Medieval Fragments, 2022. Web.