Example Of Essay On Capital Punishment Prohibition

The morality of capital punishment is a contested issue that frequently polarises people’s views. Nevertheless, in 2012 with the world moving towards global civilisation and human rights, it is arguable that it can never be acceptable to sentence an individual to death.
A chief argument against capital punishment is based around the value of life. Most people think human life to be of value and many abolitionists believe it to be so treasured that even the most ruthless murderers should not have their lives taken. Strict abolitionists argue that all people have a human right to life and that sentencing an individual to death is a breach of his basic human rights. Many people think the concept and the practice of retribution to be morally flawed. They view that demonstrating killing as wrong by implementing a second killing is unethical.
Conversely, capital punishment supporters argue that in order for justice to work effectively, criminals need to suffer for their crime proportionately. If maintaining this rule, it seems sensible that a murderer should be punished with his own death. Many people who are undecided about their views on capital punishment find that this idea sits well with their intrinsic sense of justice. This particular argument in support of retribution is often backed up with the “an eye for an eye” reasoning. Nonetheless, using this quote from the Old Testament in fact shows a misunderstanding of the concept. The Old Testament meaning of “an eye for an eye” essentially connotes that a guilty person should be punished but not too harshly.
A valid question when evaluating the ethical suitability of the death sentence is whether it actually deters crime. Evidence suggests that it doesn’t; what appears to deter crime is the likelihood of being found out and convicted. Social scientists tend to agree that the success of the death penalty as a deterrent is unconfirmed. In 1988 a survey was piloted for the UN to decide the correlations between the death penalty and rates of homicide. This was updated in 1996. It concluded that the death penalty did not work as a deterrent, over life imprisonment. Rather, it was the chance of being caught and punished at all that affected the likelihood of people committing crimes.
Irrespective of moral and ethical views regarding capital punishment, it is debatable that to cause such a degree of suffering to the criminal is bordering on torture, and is therefore, fundamentally wrong.
Certain means of execution are clearly likely to cause some suffering. Some examples are execution by electrocution, strangulation and lethal gas. Some alternative methods, such as firing squads and beheading have been forbidden because they were thought to be too brutal, or because the involvement of the executioner was too close.
Nowadays, many countries choose the lethal injection method as it is believed to be less harsh for both the executioner and the offender. However, there are well-known flaws with this method, including that a medical professional needs to be involved in the actual process of killing, and this contradicts with the ethics of a medical professional.
It is strange that America, one of the most highly respected nations in the world, can still be allowing this out-dated tradition of crime punishment. Thinking more globally, the answer is the same. In these times of civilisation and politics, there cannot possible be a situation where implementing the death penalty is acceptable.