The basic most concept of morality taught to people revolves around the dictum that human life is sacred, and it has great value. This is the very reason death comes as a shock to people, chiefly because life is a gift and it is cherished by every soul. Throughout the history of mankind, people have killed and have been killed over various disputes. The death penalty has been a major form of punishment given to people in order to penalize them rightly for their crime. The executions were carried out in various forms where torture, beheading at the gallows, hanging to death, electrocution and or slow poisoning and all these methods end the life of an accused criminal (Christian). While the basic purpose of the death penalty is to seek revenge against the person who killed another person, it is also done to serve as a means of deterrence for the rest of the people so that they can also learn about the consequences of taking another person’s life. Many people witness the death of the person who has been sentenced to the death penalty. However, on the one hand, where people support the death penalty and profess that it helps the society in a positive manner, the death penalty is an equally unjust and unethical form of punishment which is violent and goes against the dictates of peace and protection of life (ACLU ). There are many other ways in which punishment can be administered; therefore, the death penalty is not the wisest punishment to sentence to an accused individual. The death
the penalty can lead to an unjust death sentence, can have a corruptive effect on the public, is morally damaging and is racially biased. Hence, to exercise it is unjust and unreasonable.
Firstly, if the death penalty was effective in reality and the executions did prevent people from murdering one another, then there would be no man accusing another of murder nor would there be homicides and shootings at such high propensity. The fact is that the death penalty does not serve immediate and effective measures because not everyone can see the person who is being sentenced to death at the time of the deed (Christian). Moreover, people are bound to stay the way they are irrespective of what punishment they are liable of receiving for committing a crime. The reason is that when a person is executed or hanged to death, the people only feel the terror of it for a while, and sooner or later they are bound to forget about the incident. As violence and ferocity from an innate part of human behavior, people cannot be prevented from behaving in an unreasonable manner, and they can commit murder and take a life. Then, if they are caught and pleaded guilty, their punishment can be the death penalty.
However, this is a fiasco that repeats itself in a vicious cycle, bound to recur itself time and again, and people commit murders, without fearing the death penalty. The death penalty is unjust because it does not provide an incentive to the person who might have acted out of violence and he could have been treated otherwise, instead of being given the death sentence. According to statistics, in the year 2011, in the many American States, the murder rate without a ban on the death penalty for murder crimes was 4.9 per 100,000 people (Gullo). On the other hand, the States, which did not impose the death penalty had a murder rate of 4.1 per 100,000 people. This shows that there are other ways of improving and working with the violence within people
instead of simply following the ‘an eye for an eye’ slogan. The South of America has the highest incidences of the death penalty, and it also has the highest crime rate. Thus, scientifically, there is no basis to prove that the death penalty is deterrent and useful.
However refusing this claim, there are supporters of the death penalty who claim that any person who has their loved one murdered would definitely want to pursue a trial, and if the accused is found guilty, then they should be punished in the same way as their loved one was lost by them. Supporters profess that it is very natural for any person who has lost a husband or a wife, a brother or a sister to demand the death of the person who killed them. Even a person, who holds the power and believes that the death penalty should not be implemented, would do the same provided he has similar circumstances (Christian).They also say there might be other reasons why most of the other States have lower crime rate in spite of the ban on death penalties, such as better economic conditions, higher literacy rate or other such facts which might be responsible.
Yet, there stands a claim that if the death penalty was effective, then it would have played some role in bringing down the crime rate, not just in one country or a group of States, rather all over the world. There are many countries today which face the problem of high homicidal rates in spite of the death penalty (Meehan). Furthermore, instead of punishing so brutally, it would have been better if these criminals were put in rehab and were changed for the better of society so they would actually know their crime and realize their mistake.
Next in line for supporting that the death penalty is unjust because at times people are accused and sentenced to death for murder or killing they never confessed to doing and were not proven guilty either. There have been a number of cases in which people have been arrested and
trialed and somehow sentenced to death (Meehan). Years after their sentence, these people have been proven guilty, and their death has been an unjust and miscalculated decision. This has happened in America’s history and even in various places in the world due to the inaccuracy of evidence and incorrect information provided to the judge and jury. An example is the case of Earl Charles, who spent three years in prison for a Georgia death row convicted of murder was given the death sentence. However, he was sentenced to death because he was found guilty by the court and they hastily put an end to the life of an alleged criminal. It was only after Earl’s death that it was discovered he was innocent (Meehan). Now no amount of regret or penance could bring back his life. This being one example of the case, there are numerous other cases as well where innocent people are sentenced to death because of the system’s haste to provide justice.
There is also another case where the person charged with murder could have killed another person, but he might have made a move in self-defense. If the other person opposing him had a gun or another weapon and was trying to kill him but he fought back and somehow managed to defeat the other person with his own weapon, then he is not liable to be charged with the death penalty (Meehan). Self-defense is always a consideration during a killing, and a man could have been under any kind of pressure when such a combat is in the process (Christian). Yet, if this does not have any evidence, then the jury is tied with the decision whether the convicted person is actually guilty or not.
Evidence from the States remarks that the law enforcement of the country has mistakenly sentenced to death, innocent men as criminals. Ever since 1873, there have been over 140 people that have been released as claimed innocent people who were sentenced to the death row.
Moreover all around the country, there is only one person set free from amongst 10 people accused of a crime. This rate shows that there is a high rate of imprecise judgment that is taken when the lives of the people are concerned. If such a high rate of people is set free from the death row, it means that they are sentenced to death over fabricated and false information. Many more might be given the death sentence because there might not have been sufficient information given to let them off the leash (Christian).
The rebuttal for the inaccuracy in judgment comes from supporters of the death penalty that claim right and wrong decisions can be made by any jury or judge, and it is the presentation of evidence and records of the crime which prove a man innocent or guilty. Therefore, if at times, an incorrect or hasty decision is made, then it is similar to any other judgment made by the court, such as a financial or domestic one (ACLU ). Moreover not all people ordered the death penalty are innocent and more guilty than innocent are sentenced to death on a normal basis.
Nevertheless, if murder deserves to be paid back with death, then the court has no justification for the life of the innocent man taken away because of an error in judgment.
If a murdered man’s life has value, then so does the life of the man who has been unjustly accused in court and even given the death sentence for a crime he never committed. This statement renders the death penalty unjust.
A third injustice by the death penalty is racism and bias in passing the judgment when a criminal is presented before a jury. According to the judgments passed in the years earlier and even in some cases today, racial disparities play a major role in either saving a person’s life or letting the person die even without sufficient evidence against him. A study by Maryland University, conducted in 2003 revealed that not only the race of the individual but also their
geographical location played an important role while influencing the court’s decision (DPIC). These very studies have shown that prosecutors were more likely to seek the death penalty if the victim of the murder was a while person and less likely to give the death penalty if the victim was African American (DPIC). The bias against the African-American community shows that the world is still stuck
on the notions of black and white skin color, irrespective of who actually committed the crime. Also, more victims of murder have belonged to the African American race instead of the whites, but justice seems to favor the lighter skin tone when it comes to the imposition of a death sentence. Data up until the year 2015 records evidence that judges in Washington prefer to order the death sentence to black people over the white (DPIC). Earlier in 2014, the same data revealed that juries were almost three times as ready to impose the death sentence on black people over the whites in a murder trial (DPIC).
There are several factors involved in this case as well. There has always been a higher rate of black people sentenced to death by the juries. According to the report by Amnesty International, race is a major issue in the American death penalty cases where even if the black and white citizens are equally accused of murder, it is the white citizens that will get leverage over the black ones when it comes to imposing the death sentence. 80% of the people ever given the death sentence were involved in cases where the victim was white (DPIC). Over 20% of the black people evicted and sentenced to death were held before an all-white jury. An even more disturbing piece of news is the fact that the New Jersey Supreme Court is more likely to pursue cases against those defendants who have been accused of killing white people (DPIC). This disparity and bias in judgment leave no room for the death penalty to be an exercise because the jury is biased and the decision is unfair. It can take away the life on an innocent person without giving a second thought to the matter.
On the other hand, there is the support for the death penalty that all the accusations made against the jury and the decisions of the court is not racially biased or favored over the whites
instead of the blacks. The Justice Department lawyers discovered that equal numbers of minorities and white people have been given the death sentence in the previous years (Gullo). There might actually be cases where the black citizen might be proven guilty actually through evidence and concrete proof instead of his death sentence being a biased move against him and his community. Also, the judiciary could take biased decisions as well, but this cannot be done all the time because there are actual authorities above the law that keep a check on their actions (Gullo).
Yet, if racial bias was not a problem for imposing the death penalty, then it might not have even been brought up. But as evidence relates, more black people are incriminated,
detained and kept in prisons than white people and they are also given the death penalty at a higher rate.
Lastly, the death penalty is unjust because it has a corruptive effect on the public. Generally, everyone is affected by the death penalty which makes it a topic of interest and conflict between the masses (ACLU ). When the death penalty is administered to an individual, it becomes a source of speculation and amazement for the viewers of the sentence. People come to witness the death sentence only because it gives them an un-named pleasure which they seek by watching an alleged criminal die because he took another person’s life. It is a ritual for these people that they observe others dying in front of them in the most tortuous manner, and there is nothing that can help them either. However only watching the incident just for the sake of leisure is unethical.
Another unethical term of the death penalty is the sworn oath that is broken by doctors when they inject a lethal injection, thereby taking a person’s life when they have precisely sworn to protect and preserve life.
On the other hand, objections raised against this revolve around the belief that people need to watch these sentences carried out so they can serve as a means of deterrence for them, and they will be prevented from committing a similar crime in the future, if they got to witness what the crime results in (ACLU ). Moreover, this is something that the criminal deserved. He took a life, and this is the end result of it. Crimes are always accompanied with consequences, and the criminal is supposed to bear the humiliation and shame. If a normal person would imagine the same happening to them, they would never have the courage to harm another person (Meehan). Also, the doctor who administers the injection is only doing his job as per the requirement of the law.
However maintaining ethical boundaries is the better solution to the problem and if people are not shown the whole sentencing as a means of entertainment, then it can preserve the essence of the act and also inhibit the derivation of pleasure from watching it.
Conclusively, the death penalty is an unjust punishment because it does not serve as a means of deterrence and there are murders committed in spite of exercising it. It would be better if criminals went to rehab facilities. The death penalty is unjust because it punishes people for a crime they never committed. Many innocent people are sentenced to death even if sufficient evidence is not found against them. Moreover, racism in filing decisions is a major problem because African-Americans are at a greater risk of being convicted and sentenced to death than whites. And lastly, the death sentence is unjust because it is unethical and people stand as spectators and the doctors operate as breaking their oath to protecting life.
Works Cited
ACLU. The case against the death penalty. 2016. Web. 14 April 2016.
Christian, Robert. Why the death penalty is worthless and unjust. Millennial. 2013. Web. 14
April 2016.
DPIC. Race and the death penalty. 2016. Web. 14 April 2016.
Gullo, Karen. Justice study finds no racial bias. Washington Post. 2001. Web. 14 April 2016.
Krider, Dawn. The value of life: the argument against the death penalty. Berkeley. Edu. N.d
Web. 14 April 2016.
Meehan, Mary. Ten Reasons to oppose the death penalty. America Magazine. 1982. Web. 14
April 2016.
