Death penalty has been a part of the legal system for centuries, and regarded as deterrent to major crimes. It had greater relevance when policing system wasn’t as well developed. Also, in those the penitentiaries weren’t as well developed so has to confine such convicts for rest of their lives. In recent times though, capital punishment has come to be regarded by many as inhumane with little or no deterring value. Major ethical issues are never easily resolved, therefore continues. It is a topic of hot debate whether the state itself should be a sponsor of killings under the pretext of deterrence. Also, it cannot be ruled out that death penalty has been applied unfairly in the past, and there is assurance whether it won’t be in future. Even though ethicist like Immanuel Kant have proposed, “If he has committed a murder, he must die. In this case, there is no substitute that will satisfy the requirements of legal justice. There is no sameness of kind between death and remaining alive even under the most miserable conditions, and consequently there is no equality between the crime and the retribution unless the criminal is judiciary condemned and put to death.” I would still like to challenge this in the context of our modern times. In light of this background, we propose abolition of capital punishment, and its replacement with imprisonment without parole.
Around 200 people in America are currently awaiting “death row.” And they are fast running out of time as courts increasingly approve law that allow death penalty, which fast-track executions at a greater pace. As these executions become routine, they are unlikely to make it to headlines. In fact, in a recent survey a vast majority of people expressed their approval of death penalty. At the opposite side of spectrum, advocate of human rights and civil liberties continue to oppose the state-sponsored executions in the US. That makes US the only industrialized western country that still approves death penalty.
Those who favor capital punishment believe that society has obligation to protect its citizen. And they feel that by putting the murderers to death can deter others from taking the same path. However, I dispute their claim. In spite of passionate cry in favor of death penalty after a major incidence, it is advisable to abolish death penalty. I am of the opinion that death penalty does not as a credible deterrence. Given a choice of end result between death penalty or a life without parole, has no impact on the person inclined to commit a crime. It has been observed that the states without the death penalty have had consistently lower crime rates than those without it. Even without the statistics, it is easy to presume that the fear of death penalty will cause only a few to hesitate, but not enough to deter them from committing crime. Most of the time the murderers believe that that they will get away with it that is without any punishment. At the same time it is very hard to determine if there is any correlation between the two. Similarly, it needs to be emphasized that “people commit murders largely in the heat of passion, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because they are mentally ill, giving little or no thought to the possible consequences of their acts”. And those criminals who plan and then execute, also plan such that they are not caught. Also, there is not substantiated evidence to suggest that death penalty deters crime more effectively than the long-term imprisonment. The claim that each execution deters future murderers has been discredited by social scientists. On the other hand, death penalty gives a false impression that the government has taken adequate measures to prevent its occurrence in the future.
In further support of this point, it has been found that murders have been more common in states with capital punishment than those that don’t. In its support, the data from 1973 to 1984, the murder rates in states without death penalty were only 63% of that in states with it. And as recent as in 2008, the average murder rate in states with capital punishment was 5.2 (per 100,000 people) as against 3.3 in states without. The deterrence, as stated by protagonist of capital punishment, seems to be having an opposite effect. Even if we compare neighboring states that are similar in other respects, it can be safely concluded that executions have no significant effect on the homicide rates. In another study, in which homicide rates 60 days before and after highly publicized executions were studied. Contrary to the belief of the researchers, the rates were actually higher than usual.
Further, we must understand that death penalty is not necessarily the best way to achieve the goal of protecting the public from murderers. The same objective can be achieved by life imprisonment without parole without having to take another life. Nor does it do any justice to the judicial system to have “get what they deserve” approach towards the convicts. In modern society, justice does not require seek murder for murder to prevent another murder. Justice cannot be based on sentiments alone, and it requires a rational basis . According to John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice, sentiments leave many unanswered or indeterminate important issues of justice. He feels that a good theory of justice should be able to resolve such issues.
Those in favor of capital punishment often defend their opinion that society has moral obligation towards protection of it citizen. And as murderers threaten its safety and welfare, putting them to death ensures that they do not kill again. I firmly believe that in spite of human desire to seek revenge for criminal act, the state should be more benevolent, and not be a believer and enforcer of those sentiments. Even though one accepts the counterpoint, under no condition should state indulge in intentional killing. Even if it is strongly argued by many that murderers are supposed to die. The fact remains that modern societies are not supposed to dictate who is supposed to die. It becomes even more deplorable, especially if the government acts in vengeance under the pretext of delivering justice. According to , “justice cannot be based in sentiments but requires a more intellectually constructive rational basis”. Say suppose the threat of death has prevented many would be murderers, and then we abolish capital punishment, we are then put at risk many potential victims. “But if death penalty does not deter them, and we continue to impose it, we have scarified lives of convicted murderers.” Then some would argue that it is better in the interest of the society to continue on with death penalty, and thereby protect lives innocent then to protect the lives of murderers. I would think this approach is very empirical, and modern society cannot take decisions about lives, even that of convicted murderers in such a casual way.
According to , it is documented that in past 100 years 350 cases of capital punishment have been identified where it was later determined that the convicts were innocent. Out of those 350, 25 had already been executed. It is quite likely that innocent people have been executed in the past, and there is no guarantee that it won’t happen in future. He argues that thanks to Medill Innocence Project and persons like Barry Scheck and his work with DNA, innocent people have been prevented from execution. He implies that if life with parole is made standard punishment, it will allow the case to be revisited. Otherwise, revisiting the case becomes a pointless exercise in time and money. If found innocent at a later time then these convicts can be exonerated. This will allow them to lead a normal and respectful life.
There are various other independent arguments in favor of abolition of capital punishment . The report feels that the execution itself might involve physical torture, and the methods involved do not guarantee instantaneous death in all cases. So, it constitutes as “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment as banned by several international legal instruments, such as the ECHR.” Besides the execution we have the “death row phenomenon”. This phenomenon pertains to extended period involving appeals and other legal proceedings, during which convicts suffers from “stress, anguish, mental and moral suffering.” There have been occasion when one of the reasons given for execution are strong public opinion. But research has shown that attitude towards capital punishment can changed with increased awareness. Also, the judicial decision should not be influenced by public opinion.
I conclude by saying that the death penalty is by no means the best way to achieve social good. But without doubt, it does cost society a lot in terms of social parameters. First, it results in wastage of life as those sentenced to death could have been rehabilitated. This would have allowed them to be socially productive and live a normal life. By executing such person, it destroys whatever positive potential such people would have had towards the society. Further, juries are also humans, and so, are susceptible to making mistakes by inflicting death penalty on innocent people. Had such convicts been allowed to live, we would have created an opportunity where they could have been reformed, and their lives would not have been wasted. Most importantly, their being alive would have created incentives where their case could have been revisited with new evidence or perspective. Depending on the case, it would have resulted in early parole or even acquittal.
In addition to lives wasted, the death penalty is also costly to the system. Contrary to popular belief, it is more expensive to execute a convict than imprisonment without parole. The costs are higher because the finality of punishment requires that procedures be followed by due diligence at all stages. It is done to minimize the chances of error, which is important due to sensitive nature of the trail. So, based on certain calculations, the cost of trial and execution of single convict costs three times of keeping that convict for remainder of life expectancy that is 40 years.
Capital punishment harms the society by lessoning the values of life. To allow the state to decide on the fate of certain citizen, in a way legitimizes taking away of life. Death of anyone , even that of a convicted killer, belittles us all. So, it is society’s duty to end such a practice which causes harm without producing any benefits.
Finally, one of the most powerful arguments against the abolition of death penalty is that “the abolitionist experience has been successful. Since the Second World War the death penalty, once abolished, has not been reintroduced in any European country apart from the former USSR, even when there were changes in public opinion and motions for its reintroduction.”
Bibliography
American Civil Liberties Union. The Death Penalty: Questions and Answers. 9 4 2007. 26 11 2013. <https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/death-penalty-questions-and-answers>.
Andre, Claire and Manuel Velasquez. Capital Punishment: Our Duty of Our Doom? 1988. 27 11 2013. <http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n3/capital.html>.
Franck. "Report on the abolition of capital punishment." 15 09 1994. Parliamentary Assembly : Council of Europe. 27 11 2013. <http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=8159&Language=en>.
Lamperti, John. "Does Capital Punishment Deter Murder? A brief look at the evidence." 03 2010. 27 11 2013. <http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~lamperti/my%20DP%20paper,%20current%20edit.htm>.
Lee Sarokin, Judge H. Is It Time to Execute the Death Penalty? 15 01 2011. 26 11 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/is-it-time-to-execute-the_b_809553.html>.
Slote, Michael. "Justice as a Virtue." 08 09 2010. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 26 11 2013. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-virtue/>.
