Death penalty is an unusual mode of punishment and based on its nature, it is specifically used to punish certain crimes including robbery with violence, treason, and murder. The law provides guidelines for the manner in which death penalty should be executed. This however varies with the regions and states. Different countries have different modes of execution. The most common modes known include: hanging, shooting, beheading, stoning, electrocution and poisoning. Death penalty serves a purpose of removing the convict from the community so that he or she does not pose any further danger to the community. It also serves the purpose of warning or deterring potential criminals from engaging in any criminal activity that may lead to the sentence of death being passed against them. In addition, it is used as a form of vengeance especially when the convict committed murder.
Death penalty is not used in every country. There are very few nations that still use death penalty as a mode of punishment. For the nations that do not accept capital punishment, the basis of their argument is that punishing by death is extremely barbaric. None the less, death penalty has benefits. First of all, when the convicted criminal is punished using capital punishment, it brings closure to the criminal(s)’ victims. The victim’s safety will still be hanging if in case the criminal is still alive. As long as the criminal has contact to the outside world while still in prison, possibilities of hitting back at the victims are wide open. However the once the criminal of the capital offence is executed, these chances become minced.
As earlier stated, death penalty serves as a means of deterring potential criminals from committing capital offences. This is one of the main arguments advanced by supporters of death penalty. It is argued that deterrence occurs in two forms. The obvious one is that once a criminal is executed, there is no way he or she can commit another crime. The other way considers the aspect of dissuading. However this has also been subjected to debates on its effectiveness.
Statistically speaking, the jurisdictions that still accept capital punishment have never witnessed a reduction of capital crime. Even though the statistical evidences have ground of proof, they fail to prove on the aspect of causality. There are several other factors that come in to play with regards to causality. It is hard to compare between jurisdictions because of demographic differences. The conditions in various jurisdictions are not usually the same. Therefore the people who oppose capital punishment by arguing on this basis may want to consider all the factors regarding causality. Both sides of the argument can bear quantitative statistical evidences to disapprove the other in relation to the issue of deterrence.
The other argument that supports death penalty is the retribution and justice. Death penalty is a form of justice delivered to the criminal’s victims. Even though opponents of death penalty argue that there is no justice in executing a criminal and that it is a only a form of vengeance, death penalty is the only way to assure the victims of justice. Retribution entails repaying like with like. If a criminal was involved in high grade murders, he or she is justified for execution. Religious teachings are appealed by the idea of retribution to rule out death penalties. According to Christian teachings, vengeance is not allowed. It is only God who is executes vengeance. However, there are conflicting scriptural evidences in majority of the religious groups either supporting or against capital punishment.
A common principle used to come up with different modes of punishment is that the penalty has to fit the crime committed. It is obvious that when a person murders, then stricter punishments have to be imposed on the person, since this is proportional to the crime. Opponents of death penalty sometimes argue that there have numerous previous cases of people innocently convicted for life or executed. With such cases in mind, this should offer sufficient solid ground to cause the state stop use of capital punishment. It is beyond doubt that such cases have occurred in the past.
However, recent improvement in criminal identification accuracy would help to reduce or prevent such cases. With the modern technology advancements in the field of criminology and forensic science there are limited chances of innocent people being sentenced to death row. There is DNA testing which specifically identifies individuals and distinguishes everyone. The mistakes done in the past can therefore offer sufficient solid ground that causes the governments to improve on the identification and delivery of justice. Some of the cases cited by the opponents of death penalty with regards to misapplication have not been all sufficient or rather they have been faulty. So this does not mean that states should abolish death penalty because of the evidences produced by the opponents.
In the United States of America, there are parole programs that convicts become liable for. When death convicts are jailed, then they become liable for paroles just like any other convicted person. The convicts who are jailed for murder, treason, robbery with violence pose a threat to the society whenever they are left back into the community. As a result, it is better to have them executed than to allow them to be jailed. It is also known from previous cases, that security can easily be breached even in the maximum security prisons. When such a case occurs and the death convicts escape into the community, they would definitely pose even higher security risk. To avoid taking chances, it is argued that execution is recommended.
Opponents of death penalty also base their arguments on the idea of foregone societal contribution. The person, who commits a capital offence and is therefore executed, does not get the opportunity make contribution to the society as a form of recompression. Such an argument is very tantamount since there is no way justice can be bartered away so that the convicted fellow reconsiders about his or her future.
In conclusion, death penalty is generally viewed to be advantageous. Based on the primary purposes it serves, death penalty needs to for part of criminal punishment. It is an appropriate means of deterring crime from occurring as well as bringing justice to the victims.
References
Alarid, F., & Wang, H. (2001). Mercy and punishment: Buddhism and the death penalty. Social Justice, Vol. 28, Spring, pp. 231-47.
Amlie, T. T., & Mitschow, M. C. (2004). Arthur Andersen and the capital punishment debate. managerail auditing journal, pp. 1160-1172.
Lamperti, J. (2005). Does Capital Punishment Deter Murder? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 87, no.1, pp. 1-16.
