Abolishing Death Penalty
Thesis Statement: Death penalty should be abolished because it is unconstitutional for violating the right to life and has not been proven to effectively deter crimes.
In the book of Evan J. Mandery entitled “Capital Punishment: A Balanced Examination”, he argued that death is indeed a grave punishment because the calculated killing of a human being by the State is considered as a denial of the executed person’s humanity and the right to life (Mandery 167). Compared to an offender who is imprisoned, he or she does not lose the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The imposition of death penalty is a cruel punishment in the sense that it goes beyond the kind of punishment that the legislature had determined to be necessary. It is equally clear that death penalty is impermissible in all circumstances under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (Mandery, 172).
Death penalty should be abolished since it can be discriminatorily imposed against certain identifiable classes of people. There has been substantial evidence that has proven that people have been executed before their innocence or guilt had been proven. Death penalty has not been established as an efficient deterrent of crime. In the book of Mandery, he argued that even the United Nations Committee study had revealed that “there is no direct correlation between the existence of death penalty and lower rates of capital crime” (Mandery 176).
In fact, there are supporters of anti-death penalty movement who condemn the imposition of the cruel punishment on the basis of moral grounds such as the right to life or respect for human life. The more serious underlying considerations that will justify the eradication of death penalty is that if it is proven as a necessary means to achieve a socially valid end (Bedau and Cassell 33). Recent studies had shown that imposing death penalty has not been proven to deter heinous crimes in the future since these crimes still occur in society. Each democratic government should abide by the principle of equal freedom and recognition of human rights by adopting “less restrictive means to achieve a national goal of lowering the rate of criminality which cannot be resolved by the imposition of death penalty” (Bedau and Cassell 32). The state must afford the rights of every person to privacy, liberty and autonomy recognized by the Constitution. Such being the case, these rights no person should be deprived of the right to life by deliberately dispensing the principle of due process.
“Death penalty inflicts havoc in the criminal justice system for it violates the right to life of every human being and offends the conscience and sense of justice of society” (Mandery 178).
As part of the proposal to abolish death penalty, it is recommended that for the offenders who committed crimes that are driven by sexual impulses or factors such as rape with murder, incest, child molestation and other similar crimes must be medically examined to identify the relationship between the crime committed and sexual fantasies of the offender to identify the intention of the criminal. An offender who had committed such brutal crimes may be suffering from mental illness that interferes with the person’s psychological functions and the ability to comprehend and direct a proper behavior. A criminal mind must be studied based on the biosocial perspective which refers to the brains, genetics and biological traits of a person at the moment he is born. These are the major factors which persuade a person to commit a crime. The human behavior is essential to make an assessment as to criminal liability of the offender. Hence, instead of imposing death penalty to the convicted criminals who are found to be suffering from mental disorder, they should be transferred to a mental health facility for appropriate treatment. Under the positivist theory, every criminal is regarded as one who is mentally sick. On the other hand, convicted defendants of heinous crimes who do not have any mental disorder should suffer life imprisonment. The purpose of imprisonment is for the justice and retribution for the victims which can be attained through less severe measures. The classical theory under the criminal law explains that a criminal can be reformed and should be treated fairly to dissuade them from breaking the law. Under this theory, the purpose of the penalty is retribution. This approach is the precursor of more contemporary theories of rational choice and regarded as the more effective approach to deter crimes.
Death is truly grave punishment. Anti-death penalty groups argued that death penalty is severe, degrading, inhuman, brutal and cruel sentence, and shocks the morals of society. It is only God who is the giver of life who should take the life of a person and not even the state has the right to order the punishment of death. Based on the recent studies, the penalty of death has not been clearly established to eradicate violence and killings in society. Therefore, it is for this very reason that death penalty should be abolished in the criminal justice system.
Works Cited:
Bedau, Hugo Adam and Paul G. Cassell. Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have
Capital Punishment? New York, USA: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.
Mandery, Evan J. Capital Punishment: A Balanced Examination. Canada: Jones and Bartlett
Publisher, 2005. Print.
