Death penalty or capital punishment is still practiced in some countries however this terrible act has been banned in a number of societies for several reasons. This issue has been widely discussed a number of times by the sociologists, scholars and other intellectuals of different societies. Some argue in favor of death penalty considering it necessary for maintaining law and order situation in the society while others criticize this act addressing it as legalized murder. This paper intends to discuss different aspects of the death penalty and finds a conclusion.
Death penalty is an act of killing, the only difference between a common murder and in this murder is the fact that the crime is committed by the state in full view under the provisions of law. Every religion suggests us to forgive our enemies and when we support the death penalty we somehow are against our religious values. We teach our kids to forgive for the wrong acts of others but in practical life we do not abide by such moralistic behavior when we support the acts like capital punishment or death penalty. People who argue for the death penalty present a number of examples and arguments in favor of death penalty but refuse to answer a simple question that if humans cannot give life to somebody how can they take the life of any person. What about the religious teachings and our education that we have learnt in our schools and that we taught our children in their childhood. If we are punishing a criminal for committing a crime with death penalty instead of forgiving him, we are directly or indirectly teaching our children that the violence is not wrong and it is indispensable.
Death penalty is immoral and unfair because when governments start doing the same things to the criminals that they do to others, there is no difference between a criminal and the state. The capital punishment reminds us of barbaric era when the rule of eye for eye and life for life was in practice. In modern society, it is beyond the imagination of a healthy mind to suggest that a rapist should be raped for his crime and the house of an arsonist should be set on fire for his crime. Mr. Gandhi opines that if we follow the rule of eye for an eye, the whole world will become blind one day. Moreover this act is not suitable for the modern society as it teaches the next generation to take vengeance and that is why the act should be abolished. Death penalty is not only barbaric and immoral but several incidents suggest that this act is also ineffective. The modern punitive actions are not meant for punish and kill the criminals but if we go to the roots, punitive actions are designed to stop people from committing the criminal acts but rampant crime rate suggests that death penalty is not capable in preventing the crime. There are several states where death penalty was reintroduced but it did not stop or reduce the crime rate in these states. Sociologists suggest that we should rethink over our education and socio economic structure that causes people to commit various crimes instead of killing them for the crimes, they committed.
Humanitarians argue that people who are awarded death penalty are also human beings and deserve a humane treatment. They say that when people are awarded death penalty, they are kept in different cells. They can not talk with other people, they are allowed to meet very few people and undergo a mental agony and suffering that creates more bitterness against the society in their mind. Death penalty is considered the most severe punishment but it is actually not the act of killing one person only who commits the crime but this barbaric act profoundly spoils the life of people related to the person who has been punished with the death penalty. They live with a social stigma in the society which lasts for the rest of their life. It certainly affects the mind of the kids of that family and there are rare chances for them to lead a good life. They may take a wrong path which again leads them to a wrong destination in their life. Humanitarians argue that death penalty is an act of killing a group of people and not the only one who has committed the crime because in the eyes of society, all the people related to that person are equally maligned.
Another aspect of the issue is that in today’s materialistic era, it is easy for the rich and influential people to manipulate the things as per their convenience and in their favor. On the other hand a person, who cannot afford the fee of big lawyers, can not represent his case in an effective way to prove his innocence or cannot manipulate the things, is trapped in the legal system. If somehow he is proved innocent after he has been punished with death penalty then is it possible for the state to bring him back. There are several cases where the punished person has been found innocent after his punishment. There are people who advocate for the death penalty by saying that state should not bear the expenses of dreaded criminals and should hang them instead of keeping them in prisons. These people forget that humans still have limitations, they can only take the life and it is not possible for a human being or the state to give the life to any one once he is dead.
Racial, gender and other discriminations have also been observed in several instances at different parts of the world while giving the death penalty. Usually the system, in which most of the people are living today, belongs to those who are influential, powerful and rich. The story is more or less same in every part of the world. The rate of the African Americans who were punished with death penalty is much higher in comparison of other people while the number of women criminals who were charged with heinous crimes is negligible in that ratio. Similar discrimination is visible in the African and Middle East countries where political rivals are also given death penalty in the name of severe crimes.
Too many legal provisions make death penalty a lengthy and an expensive process. It is in fact lengthier than keeping the criminals in the prison. When a person is awarded the death penalty, he or she initiates legal proceedings against the verdict and several years pass in the proceedings. If the person is rich and influential, he can delay the proceedings with the legal advices and tricks of the Lawyers and even if he has no money, the proceedings go on for a long time. In some cases, lawyers deliberately or in deliberately distorts the case and the person pays the price of it with the death penalty. Edwin H. Sutherland, who is regarded as father figure in American criminology writes in his book, Criminology “The death penalty does not fit into the system that is being developed for the treatment of criminals, which is individualization on the basis of the character and personality of the offender rather than punishment on the basis of the crime committed. Some criminals, of course, cannot be reformed by known methods, but there are none whose reformation should not be attempted. The death penalty, as a compulsory penalty for any offense, is therefore an anachronism or rapidly becoming such. They burn up their energy in an emotional flash, which should be used for the correction of the conditions that have produced the crime. When the death penalty is used, errors of justice are irreparable".
After having observed the abovementioned analysis of the subject matter, it is good to conclude by saying that the death penalty is an immoral act, an act of murder by the state. Crime of any kind and by any one can not be justified. We should regard our religious values which suggest us to forgive the sinners and our enemies instead of taking their lives. When we are doing the same thing that they did to us then in what way we are different from them. We are not producing good examples for our coming generations by allowing such things in our society.
Works Cited
Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey. Criminology, By Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1970.
Nathanson, Stephen. An Eye for an Eye: The Immorality of Punishing by Death. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.
Welzmuler, Monika. The death penalty- legal cruelty. Munich: GRIN Verlag, 2006.
