Death penalty denotes the type of punishment where an offender is committed to hanging for the offence he/ she committed. It is also referred to as capital punishment in some countries. It is a punishment that is mostly prescribed to those who have committed capital offences like murder. Death penalty has been in existence for a long period and has since been a hotly debatable issue. This paper attempts then, to justify the necessity of this punishment as a form of administering justice to capital offenders.
Both the proponents and opponents of the death penalty agree on one major issue in our society. Those crime and criminals exist everywhere. It exists on both ends of the society. It is my submission that we cannot run away from this issue. The society must, therefore, act with necessity to eliminate this disorder. There are those criminals who indulge in crime in order to survive. In which case, they have no option. On the other hand, there are those who commit crime including murdering fellow human beings for their gain. This is what they do in order to earn a living. Such persons deserve to die as well. The society must find ways of eliminating such persons from amongst themselves. Fortunately, for systems that have the death penalty in place, there is no better way to eradicate these people than to sentence them to hang. In this way, a death penalty helps the society or reduce crime (Bedau, 123-126). It as well served to deter crime in the society.
Death penalty also serves to warn would-be offenders that crime is punishable even by death in the extremes. Opponents of this system of punishment would argue that there are no proven records to account for that. It is my argument that the best way to stop someone from committing a crime is to create fear in that person. The bet way too, to create fear in would-be criminals is to show them that crime is punishable by death. It becomes realer in the event that a person known to them has been changed for the same offence. In this case, a death penalty serves a good purpose in preventing crime.
Opponents hold that form of punishment cannot be reversed. They add that more injustice would be done in a case where the convict turns out to be innocent. That was a statement that makes sense. Equally, in all case scenarios is the most extreme type of punishment. It is a decision arrived at after a very careful and objective judicial analysis. The evidence produced against a capital offender must be watertight. It must be proven that the person before the courts committed the crime and deserves to hang. Reversing this type of penalty based on the assumption that an innocent person might be irreversibly changed is wrong. Most criminals would continue walking amongst us heads high on the belief that, after all, they would never be changed. On this ground, crime rate would rise in the society.
Those against a death penalty argue that it denies the offenders a chance to return and apologize to the society. I would like to counter this argument though. The current state of jails tends to harden criminals rather than rehabilitate them. Releasing a hardened criminal to the society by offering them a chance to apologize would be a great mistake. Such a person would be experienced enough and instead of being remorseful, would indulge in more and more criminal activities. This way, the death penalty serves to eliminate such criminals from amongst the society.
Work Cited
Bedau, Hugo A. The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Print.
Gottfried, Ted. The Death Penalty: Justice or Legalized Murder?Brookfield, Conn: Twenty-First Century Books, 2002. Print
Pojman, Louis P, and Jeffrey H. Reiman. The Death Penalty: For and against. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998. Internet resource.
