Introduction
The death penalty, also known as capital punishment is punishment by the execution of someone who has committed a severe crime (Vaughn, 2015, p. 667). Capital punishment has been in existence for thousands of years, and the western world has been using it against different crimes. Several types of executions have been used, from the ancient to modern times. These include crucifixion, burning alive, hanging, firing squad, lethal injection, etc. (Vaughn, 2015). However, there are several debates about the death penalty due to conflicting opinions on the topic. Some argue that this sanction should be abolished while others support it. Those who want it to be abolished cite moral confusion of the death penalty on human life. On the other hand, those who support it argue that some crimes deserve the death penalty. Although some countries have successfully abolished the death penalty, it is still applicable in some countries. In the United States, the death penalty is widely used, and as of 2017, there were 2,843 prisoners on death row (Vaughn, 2015, p.667). This essay aims to argue against the death penalty from legal and moral perspectives.
There are several reasons why the death penalty should be removed in the justice system. It Is Not an Effective Method of Preventing Capital Crimes
Those who support the death penalty (retentionists) argue that the death penalty can achieve great results in stopping offenders from committing capital crimes (Vaughn, 2015, p.668). In other words, the death penalty would make criminals think twice before committing a crime. However, this is not the case because the rate of capital crimes is still high. The cases of murder, rape, kidnapping, sodomy, and others are on the rise. 20 out of 25 states with high murder cases have the death penalty. The existence of these crimes in the U.S and other countries that retain the death penalty indicates it cannot deter capital criminals. The death penalty might also encourage murderers to avoid being caught, and this puts more people in danger than when they were in prison (Vaughn, 2015).
Innocent People become Victims of It
The other problem of the death penalty is that innocent people became victims of it. Therefore, it should be abolished to prevent innocent people from being killed. Traditionally, a person was determined if he is guilty or innocent using DNA tests. However, DNA evidence became less effective, and prosecutors introduced new forms of evidence. Innocent people become victims due to persistent errors such as false confessions, misidentification of the eyewitness, lying informants, and flawed forensic system (Garret, 2017, p.2). In 2017, over 100 prisoners were released from prison because they were innocent. These were lucky few because there might be several others who are on death row for crimes they never committed. It is important to acknowledge that the problem of human error can be lessened but can never be eliminated. Errors will be during the investigation, testing evidence, testifying, and passing judgment by jury. Therefore, retaining the death penalty is equivalent to the continuous murdering of innocent persons.
Violates Human Rights
The other issue with the death penalty is that it violates human rights. Every individual has a right to life. Supporters of the death penalty justify its necessity with the notion that it gives meaning to the lost life of the victim. In other words, the goal of capital punishment is revenge, such that the life of the murderer is taken to avenge the death of the victim (Bishop and Osler, 2016). We should consider how the humanity of a person matters, even if such an individual commits the worst crimes. The best we can do to such people is to rehabilitate them through life imprisonment. Some people commit capital crimes because they are emotionally handicapped or mentally ill. This is an effective way of ending mass incarceration and providing room for correcting errors. For example, if a person is proven innocent after being convicted, such a person can be released. Life imprisonment is also an effective way of incapacitating murderers and honoring the lives of the victims in a “living, breathing, meaningful way by preventing such tragedies in the future” (Bishop and Osler, 2016). Convicting capital criminals to life imprisonment without parole would discourage offenders from committing such crimes. The family members of a murder victim also want a finality of sentencing, and sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole will achieve this as it is through the death penalty (Bishop and Osler, 2016).
It Is Expensive
The other problem of the death penalty is that it is expensive. Some people might argue that sentencing criminals to life in prison are more expensive because of necessities such as food, housing, and water; the death penalty is more expensive. It is costly because the death penalty cases are lengthy, unpredictable, and complex ((Breyer, 2016). The government spends huge amounts of money on hiring defenders and for the entire process. It is also a waste of taxpayer money because it does not deter violent crimes. The taxpayers used in the death penalty could be used on other important issues such as housing the homeless and addressing the needs of the disabled.
It Is a Cruel Form of Punishment That Violates the Constitution
A death penalty is also a cruel form of punishment that violates the constitution, and human rights ban against the cruel punishment of individuals ((Breyer, 2016). The constitution guarantees due process of the law and equal protection. Therefore, punishing people using methods such as hanging, burning, electrocution, or lethal injection is against those rights. Therefore, the death penalty should be abolished to avoid killing people with premeditation and in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Besides, the death penalty is inconsistent with the values of a democratic system. It is unfair and inequitable in practice. The system is applied based on how much money an individual has, the skill of attorneys, the victim’s race, and where the crime took place. There is a high probability of African Americans being executed for the death penalty than white people (Breyer, 2016).
Conclusion
The death penalty should be abolished because it can cause more harm than good. Capital punishment has not solved the problem of crime in the society since its introduction. Despite the threat of capital punishment, offenders still commit murder crimes. In states with the death penalty, there is a high rate of crimes compared to those that abolished the system. The death penalty also puts the lives of innocent people at risk. So many innocent people have become victims of this system due to human errors during the investigation, testimonies, and judgment. The death penalty is also more costly both in terms of money and time. The government spends more hiring defenders, and the whole process is time-consuming. The death penalty is also unfair and unconstitutional. It violates the ban on cruel punishment and is racially biased. It all also abuses the sanctity of life. The system should adopt an alternative punishment such as life imprisonment, which is more severe and is likely to reduce the crime rates.
