Introduction
Capital punishment or the death penalty is the process by which a state puts an accused person to death for perpetrating a grave crime. The matter has been of considerable controversy over the past century in various countries and states. Human rights activists have continually criticized the states of being inhuman, immoral, and irresponsible for the welfare of its people through killing suspected criminals (Vaughn 78). Religious groups such as Christians have also expressed their disappointments over capital punishment, as it goes against the wishes and plans of God. The various reasons that state carrying out the process hold in executing criminals are to eradicate people that are rather beyond repair. Even though proponents augment that capital punishment can be right in some cases, it is morally inhumane, brutal, and barbaric.
Proponents favoring capital punishment argue that it serves as the supreme deterrent; yet forget that it is in itself a sin ("The Advantages and Disadvantage" n. p). Supporting groups argue that capital punishment is arguably the best deterring force to other people who would like to follow the footsteps of the criminals. In cases where a person commits a grave crime, including, rape, murder and goes ahead to receive a death sentence, the process would instill fear in those people who would have otherwise thought of raping and killing others. Apparently, no one wishes to die. Thus, possible criminals will stop their heinous acts because they clearly know that they will face capital punishment when caught. While some empirical studies support this line of thought, they fail to indicate the reasons why criminals still engage in illegal activities irrespective of the death sentence. Over the years, justice systems around the world have executed numerous individuals for committing grave offenses. Meanwhile, the capital punishment fails to sanctify the society given that criminals commit serious crimes, knowing too well, their fortunes under the justice system.
Besides, capital punishment is not only morally wrong but also constitutes a sin. In reality, killing criminal presents the state as no different from the person who committed murder in the first place. It is pretentious for a government to execute an individual for killing another person. Mainly, one moral wrong does not serve as a prerequisite for resolving another problem. The death penalty contravenes the government's role to preserve and safeguard human life. In essence, the government has a role to ensure its citizenry does not encounter harm. However, imposing the death penalty on its citizenry clearly violates the government's core role. Additionally, the Holy Bible among other religious manuscripts significantly undermines killing. God Himself does not endorse killing in any way. One God's Ten Commandments reiterates, "Thou shall not kill." The statement, therefore, shows that people who execute criminals are sinning not only before man but also before the almighty God. It is imperative to highlight that none of the religious scripts advocate taking the life of a criminal irrespective of the magnitude of his or her offenses. Most societies also do not endorse killing for any reason whatsoever because man's life is rather priceless. Therefore, even though researchers advocate capital punishment as a deterrent to grave offenses, it is not only harsh but also a sin.
Supporters of death penalties argue that there are people who are so cruel that they cannot reform – not even sentencing the individual to a life sentence in prison. In essence, some criminals do not rehabilitate even after undergoing elongated incarceration sentences. Proponents to the capital sentence debacle augment that it is realistic to kill such individuals as opposed to releasing them since they will still rake havoc in differing measures. Such an example is that of a serial killer, who in essence, nothing can change him or her. Regardless of the number of years that the person stays in prison, he or she will less likely change. Such a person can even continue killing while in jail, or else kill when released into the outside world. Thus, the most appropriate way of preventing innocent civilians from such lethal people is to eradicate them from the society. Although capital punishment serves to eliminate hardened criminals that are beyond reformation, some of the people end up getting death penalties while they are innocent.
However, it has appeared over time that some of the accused criminals of murder and even rape were not guilty. Some of these people may have just failed to offer sufficient evidence that they are indeed innocent. In other cases, the defendant of murder or rape may have undergone framing by other people but ends up in the wrong hands of the law. These people end up dying while in the real sense are innocent. There are cases where the truth comes only later, after the state has executed a person. Thus, despite capital punishment eradicating hardened criminals who are beyond repair, it sometimes leads to the execution of innocent civilians. Guilty or not, the justice system ought to device other avenues to deal with repetitive criminals who fail to repay their debt to society even after serving elongated sentences. In some countries, the justice system deals with such criminals by sending them off to farmlands far away from dense population areas. While there, the captives engage in hard labor without pay, ensuring that the criminals are useful while serving their sentences.
Although capital punishment prevents cases of hardened criminals escaping from prison and joining the public, executing people is wrong because it denies them the chance to prove their worth and change. One should admit that there are cases where some criminals break away from prison only to mix with the public and go free. In some of these cases, the police never find these criminals. In case the justice system sentences a hardened criminal such as a serial killer, imprisons him or her, and in turn breaks free, he or she will greatly present a grave risk to the rest of the public. Thus, some states believe that executing such a person is the best way of preventing such cases. However, it is clear that while capital punishment aims at preventing similar cases from killing, some people can change. It is momentous to highlight that not every person is recalcitrant and beyond repair. There are cases of people who commit grave crimes but later turn a new leaf and become productive in their societies where they reside.
A branch of cognitive psychology argues that most criminals encounter a psychotic breakdown that fosters their irreparable behaviors. In the recent past, psychologists have been campaigning on the need to setup psychiatric centers to examine hardcore criminals before sending them off to maximum incarceration facilities or executing them. To date, numerous criminals have reformed after garnering a new perspective on life. For instance, some seek solace in religion while in prison, after which they improve so much to the extent of acting as inspirations to other criminals. The justice system has begun an active role of using reformed criminals to deter others within the societal setting. Thus, an execution of such a person eludes the opportunity for them to change. Hence, in spite of the purported argument that capital punishment aids in eradicating criminals to prevent possible escape from prison, it does not allow the criminals a second chance.
Conclusion
Works Cited
"The Advantages and Disadvantages of Capital Punishment (Death Penalty) - Hosbeg.com." Hosbegcom. 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.
Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010. Print.
