Should we rape the rapist? Should we torture the criminals? Is Vengeance the right approach? Should criminals be reformed or executed? These questions crop up often especially when an inmate is executed. Death Penalty or capital punishment is a contested concept mainly on the basis of ethics and fundamental rights. There are arguments and equally strong counterarguments depicting the irrelevance of this practice.
Those who are against the death penalty argue that human life is valuable and even the worst offenders shouldn't be deprived of their lives. In addition, everybody has the 'right to life' and death penalty deprives a person of this right."An eye for an eye" is not the right approach especially in a society with matured and thought provoking individuals.As per the reports of Amnesty International, this practice has already been abolished by 140 nations.There are quite a few studies testifying that abolishing this cruelest punishment has not increased the homicide.
At the same time, there are supporters of the death penalty saying that it is necessary to punish the criminal in a same way as he/she does.Given this backdrop, this essay attempts to defy the need of the capital punishment with the help of relevance examples. However, some of the positive views have also been discussed to present the topic in a holistic manner.
Death Sentence is not an Effective Deterrent
First and the foremost, it is not the effective deterrent, as has been stated by the supporters.Experts have stated that the death penalty has not proved to be a strong deterrent They even believe that life imprisonment is better compared to the death sentence as it spoils the whole life of the offender thereby instilling fear in other potential offenders. Death sentence, in contrast, spoils the lives of offender's family more than the person who has committed the crime.Some criminologists like William Bowers have maintained that the capital punishment is rather counter-productive. This means that it increases the chances of future murders by brutalizing the society. Statistics reveal that states that don't have capital punishment in US have lesser murder rates compared to the other states. Likewise, murder rates are higher in US ( having death penalty) compared to Canada or Europe ( don't have death penalty).The reason of its inefficacy as a deterrence may be because of the loopholes present in the legal system of many nations. There are several examples when even the gravest offences go unresolved. More so, murder is usually done in a fit of anger and the thought of fear is less like to crop up in the mind of sinner while committing the crime. As stated by the Attorney General from Texas:
"It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. In most of the cases murders were committed under alcohol or drug abuse."
A survey conducted recently by the leading criminologists in US revealed that the majority argued against it on deterrence aspect. The survey was based on the questionnaires and a whopping 88 percent of the respondents stated that it does not deter the homicide.In another study conducted in California, it was identified that homicide increased to 100 percent in those years when capital sentence was carried out. This research compared offences between two time spells, 1952-1967( punishment occurred every 2 months) and 1968-1991( no inmate was executed in these years).Thus, there is no proven statistics stating the efficacy of death sentence as a deterrence..As per the 2012 report of the National Research Council, Deterrence and the Death Penalty, there is no clear evidence supporting the efficacy of the punishment in preventing future murders. The studies done so far are inconclusive and should not be used to take policy decisions.
Death Sentence Distorts the Social Order
Secondly, death sentence is not a 'just' punishment and distorts the social balance in the society. It can't be justified on ethical and moral grounds. Those holding this view have stated that the death sentence doesn't restore any balance; neither it is acceptable in a matured and responsive nation. Retribution means revenge and revenge can't be the weapon of a matured society. Though, at the first instance, the impulse may to be inflict the same pain to the offender; this feeling arising out of emotions is not defensible considering the risks and problems involved. The notion of retribution or revenge creates the chain of violence thereby distorting the social order. Even societies have not endorsed the thought of an eye for eye. Raping the rapist is not a true solution to the problem. In a developed social, legal or criminal system principles should be higher and there should be respect for everybody's life; even though it may be the life of a murderer.
In 1995 case of bombings in Oklahoma in which Julie ( daughter of Welch) was killed, the instant desire of Welch was to take revenge from those responsible for bombings. Later on, he realized that those bombings was the result of reprisal. Replying it with same emotion will not lead to any fruitful result. Capital punishment teaches people to take the revenge and responding to violence with violence is not a better solution. Rather, the offender should be given a chance to change his/her habits. The basic idea behind this thought is that "nobody is a born criminal". Different situations and conditions may force the person to do the sin. In such cases, the death penalty further violates the social order rather than restoring it.
Though retribution itself is a wrong notion, the execution of innocence has also been the issue. As per the statistics, for every 7 people executed, there is one innocent. A research conducted by the Columbia University revealed that there is high error rate of around 10 percent in capital punishments. More so, DNA testing is in vogue since 1990s and has exonerated the inmates. Had this technology come 10 years back, chances are high that some inmates would have been released as innocents.
Above all, there have been many cases when the punishment has been used unfairly. In a study conducted in Georgia for over a 5 years period, it was found that twenty percent of the executed inmates were blacks . Is it morally justified to inflict the harsher punishment on the basis of ethnicity or religion or nationality, economic condition or any other similar criteria? These arguments are a testimony to the unjustness of death sentence.
Death Sentence Negates the 'Right to Life'
Last but not the least, the very concept of the death sentence assumes that the State has absolute powers to take the life which is not the case in reality. Philosophically speaking, does the State possess absolute 'purity' to take any life? If the criminal has committed the crime, is the State so 'pure' that it can punish the person for the offence?The records of almost all Governments have tinge of oppression, corruption and deception. Thus, they can't be granted with the right to take criminal's life. Moreover, the State is there to serve its citizens, not to kill them for their crime.
Even the most guilty has the 'right to life'. As per the philosophers, the thought-provoking question with respect to the capital punishment is : "Can other humans have the right to kill the wrong-doers?"This right is only with God and inflicting the death to the inmate signifies playing with the God's right. Moreover, death penalty involves doctors and it spoils their duties as the medical professionals. They swore to preserve lives, not to take these . This issue has been debated many times andin 1980, AMA( American Medical Association) alsoquestioned the participation of doctors in this practice. Thus, there are serious ethical concerns related to the involvement of doctors in giving the death sentence.
Ethical concerns become more alarming when execution is done arbitrarily. For the similar crimes, some are executed while some are not. In 1979 in Florida, two people were charged with the killing; one was executed and other was freed! These types are stories are so frequent that even a regular follower of news can point out this arbitrariness in inflicting the punishment.
Death Sentence Prevents Future Murders
Supporters hold the view that the death penalty prevents future murders. The reasons they have cited to support this view are inconclusiveness of existing research studies and some evidences that have proved its efficacy in preventing future crimes. For instance, An analysis by Isaac Ehrlich in 1973 exhibited that for every offender who was executed, 6 lives got saved. A research conducted in 1967 revealed that the murder rates increased by 7 percent in 5 years in those states of US that abolished the capital punishment.
It is true that there are a few examples showing the worth of death penalty in deterring future murders; results cannot be universalized. Had it been the case, over 70 percent of the countries would not have abolished it. In USA alone, 18 states have abolished this lethal punishment, Maryland being the latest one. Moreover, the higher crime rate in US, some of whose states still retain the death penalty, compared to non-retainers like Canada and Europe is a testimony to saying that retaining the death penalty doesn't mean lesser rate of crime. For these reasons, the view supporting it as an effective deterrent doesn't seem convincing.
Capital Punishment doesn't disturb the Societal Balance; It either restores the balance
Another argument put forward by supporters is that there are only a few cases when death sentence is inflicted. In this sense, it is totally justified; rather it is necessary to make the equilibrium in any society. A 'just' society is a balanced society and when one takes another's life, that balance gets distorted. The only way to restore this balance is to take back the sinner's life. The basis for retribution is based on a religious and historical concept that approves " a life for a life" and " an eye for an eye". Thus, for the worst offences, punishment should also be the worst else the balance will not be restored in its true sense.
A close reflection on this argument reveals its futility. Imagine what will be the social order if every mother teaches her kid to take revenge with fellows in the school. The very notion of revenge disturbs the social balance and cannot be accepted on moral and ethical grounds. Vengeance can never heal the wounds or reverse the pain.Instead, it attempts to legitimize murderous impulses and spreads the violence in the society.
Moreover, focusing on taking the revenge will divert the attention from the root of evils prevailing in the society. Murder is not the only violent behavior in any society; it's just a tip of the iceberg. Rather than focusing on this tip, it is better if efforts are done to melt the entireiceberg.In fact, the offender can be changed with patience and love; never by taking the revenge. Thus, the very idea of retribution exhibits the immaturity on part of individuals.
Conclusion
The discussion has examined evidence for and against the death penalty.The main points of arguments are: the efficacy of death penalty as a deterrence, the notion of retribution and ethical and moral grounds of the punishment. Though both arguments( in favor and against) are equally strong and supported by the research studies and examples, it is clear that further research is still required to understand the efficacy of punishment. Also,the studies have not come up with any conclusion on part of the deterrence. Likewise, the notion of retribution has been contested on various grounds. The argument stating that revenge can't be the matured form of thinking seems suitable in the given context. It is true that taking the revenge hardly leads to fruitful results. Thus, it is rather better if criminals are given a change to reform themselves. Last but not the least, the punishment is not justifiable on moral grounds and different arguments have been put forward concisely in this regard.On the other side, there are evidences when it has proved effective in preventing future crimes.
The gist is- supporters of the punishment have their own notions and those who are against it have their own reasons to negate. Therefore, it is really difficult to boil down to a conclusion. Still, the punishment has been abolished by many countries and no clear linkages with the rates of homicide have been revealed.
Simply put, abolishing it or not depends on the legal laws of any state. However, respective Governments must try to play fair ( if they chose to retain the capital punishment in their legal system) and reduce the arbitrariness in execution on the grounds of nationality or ethnicity. The execution of the innocence is irrevocable and can't be justified on any basis. Any discrimination or arbitrariness on part of authorities not only negates the very purpose of this punishment but also disturbs the people's sentiments.
References
Adam, H. (1998). The Death Penalty in America. Oxford University Press.
Alston, P., & Goodman, R. (2012). International Human Rights. Oxford.
Amnesty International. (2012). Death Penalty Report.
Connors, R. B. (2002). Facing Ethical Issues. New Jersey: Paulist Press.
Fridell, R. (2003). Capital Punishment. New York: Marshall Cavendish.
Hood, R. G., & Hoyle, C. (2008). The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Mnadery, E. (2011). Capital Punishment in America: A Balanced Examination. Sudbury: John and Bartlett.
National Research Council. (2012). Deterrence and the Death Penalty. Washington: National Academies Press.
Parks, P. J. (2009). Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime? ReferencePoint PressInc.
Yorke, J. (2008). Against the Death Penalty. Surrey: Ashgate Publishers.
