Introduction
Various debates about the death penalty have been on the limelight in multiple countries in the world. Many states have abolished the death penalty for certain crimes, but in some countries, the death penalty is still applicable. Modern society is characterized by many violent crimes in their daily lives, and many people are concerned about crime rates. Many crimes tend to be brutal and evil; hence the victims should be permanently eliminated from a law-abiding state.
The death penalty is aimed at decreasing crime rates though it's the cruelest method of criminal punishment. Indeed all guilty individuals need to be severely punished in proportion to their crime rate as for justice to be enhanced; it requires people to suffer for their wrongdoing. Due to the cry by the society and the states at large for justice, then the courts must implement appropriate punishment against the crime committed. Many criminals tend to wait for executions, and it's during the period that they tend to reflect on their wrong deeds and consequences, especially for individuals with mental health problems.
In the United States of America, many studies have been conducted on the impact of the death penalty, and indeed some show that punishment affects violent crimes in society (Streib, 2018). When convicted individuals make rational decisions of committing violent crimes, they must as well give up his freedom to life through a jail term when the authority acts by ensuring justice is spearheaded.
The victims are protected by the law since they have a right to life, but then why do they have a right to end the life of another person and expect to retain their life? Hence various prepositions are in favor of the death penalty
Deterrence
Deterrence is the idea that punishment will prevent people from committing the same crime as well as reduce the probability of offending cases in society (Bedau, 2017). The death penalty is thus justified with the argument that the act of executing the convicted criminals will prevent more people from committing the crime, especially for the case of murderers. Deterrence tend to be more efficient when the punishment is implemented soon after the crime has been committed since the more time taken to effect the legal sentence it implies that the penalty will be less effective
Support of Deterrence
The argument thus is supported by a sense of perpetrating justice in the nation. Some executions, especially in the public setting, are painful and humiliating, and this generally prevents other individuals from being tempted to commit the same crimes in the society. In some circumstances, the death penalty is beneficial, although it has no deterrence effect. For instance, in a case where murders are executed and no deterrence effect, a bunch of criminals has already been eliminated from the society since if they are not convicted, then other murderers will increase killing rates.
Refutation for Deterrence
However, a contradiction against deterrence exists as the statistical data doesn't confirm that deterrence is applicable, and at times some crimes are committed by people who have undergone emotional torture. The criminal did not imagine the possible outcome.
Retribution
Death penalty punishment is implemented for justice purposes. When an individual commits a murder crime justice is affected, and proper action must be performed as soon as possible. If the balance is not achieved, then the state succumbs to a rule of violence. It's only through an equal measure of taking the murders life that the society will be convinced that, indeed, murder is an act that will never be tolerated, and punishment of kind is sufficient. Retribution is thus connected to a religious-historical value that that is efficient to take an eye for an eye hence life for life. The execution is aimed at bringing closure of the case, although the victim's family will not be restored to their initial act before the crime happened. Cruel crimes require the death penalty as lesser punishment will undermine the overall acceptable value of the society on the protection of lives.
Support of Retribution
For retribution, the murders deserve to die as well. It's evident from the bible, the book of Romans 12:19 states you need sole authority to justify taking the life of a human being. This continues to support the execution of criminals in the name of God in the New Testament as it states, let every person be subjected to the governing authorities, and God institutes the powers that are in existence. It's not a must to seek religious guidance of justification for the death penalty since the state must ensure justice is enhanced in the society. Like the other authority of resource allocation and protection of citizens, so it does protect the judgment of people through the punishment of the criminals.
Refutation of Retribution
Retribution involves revenge, and the death penalty isn't a perfect measure for taking one's life. The standards and criteria of modern society require a decisive action that has principles that entails respect for life, which include the life of the victim. Revenge extends violence, and many families of the victims are against the death penalty (Roberts-Cady, 2015). Many people do the belief that killing is an evil act, especially with religious doctrines, as taking life after another one has been eliminated does not imply any justice. Circumstances take the place of execution of an innocent person, and this indicates that the principle of retribution is violated. Justice must be ensured for the preposition to apply to the judicial system in the states.
Closure and Vindication of Victim's families
Closure and justification of the crime is a reason as to why many families support the death penalty. Families decide to put the crime behind and focus on moving ahead with their lives as they are aware that the person who committed a crime of their family member will no longer be free (Kyambalesa, 2019). Families play a significant role concerning the case proceedings as families must testify the sentencing to be open on the effect the murder has had on their lives.
Support for Closure and Vindication
Support is ensured by providing mental healthcare and other relevant services to the families to enable them to recover from the loss since it's a long-term effect that cannot be easily erased.
Refutation of Closure and Vindication
The argument is rather refuted as some families have different reactions to the death penalty. Families do not feel that the death of another person is the best solution for disclosure as people feel disservice to victims. Multiple wrongs do not find a solution, and taking human life is unethical whether the crime requires justice to be enhanced or not. Every person has a right to life and must be protected by the constitution, including the life of crime victims.
Prevention of Re-Offending Preposition
Many individuals executed cannot commit further crimes. A significant challenge arises in preventing offenders and other convicted criminals from re-offending, thus the need for the penalty. Rehabilitation is a perfect strategy to avoid re-offending, but it has become less effective in many jurisdictions.
Support of Prevention of Re-Offending
Many victims tend to be rehabilitated due to the activities and events that happen in prison towards molding the characters of the offenders.
Refutation of Preventing Re-Offending
In some circumstances, all people in prison tend to be released to the community, and in many cases, the individuals do commit crimes once again (SAGHAFI, 2019). As well people escaping prison have a history of re-offending, and it’s thus clear that the death penalty is not the best solution to ensure that offenders do not re-offend.
Conclusion
The death penalty has been of the question in many states around the globe, and the punishment has various cultural, religious, and political aspects. The sentence is meant to prevent and justify an act that happens in society and the state at large. Many people believe that crime must be executed to avoid further occurrences. Nevertheless, it may not be justifiable to vulnerable individuals and criminals in society. Various prepositions for the favor of the death penalty argument include deterrence, retribution, family closure, and vindicate as well as prevention of pre-offending by the criminals. However, the prepositions have also been refuted as they cannot indicate evidence of crime decline due to the penalty. For justice to prevail in the state, it requires respect to life; hence a mature rule must apply thoughtful solutions to the problems that exist in the society. The death penalty ensures the prevention of crime, and the justice systems have implemented the judgment in many cases in an attempt to find solutions for various crimes.
