<Student’s name>
<Supervisor´s name>
English
Throughout modern history, death penalty, both in general sense and as a set of specific practices, has always been a subject of public debates and political speculations. Intentional deprovation of life, which by itself is widely considered to be the prerogative of God rather than other individuals, especially in time of peace, is indeed an important topic in life of every society. My intention within this paper is to analyze possible pros and cons of death penalty from various points of view and develop an argumented and logically justified position. The phenomenon of death penalty should be assessed from various points of view: political, legal, social, economic, cultural, historical, ideological, phsychological, physiological, ethical etc. It would be reasonable to consider death penalty in each of these aspects and evaluate it’s respective advantages and disadvantages.
- Political, social and economic considerations concerning death penalty.
Death Penalty World Map (2012) (Delaney)
As shown in the picture above, most Western countries did not perform executions in 2012 (colored blue), with the exception of the U.S.A. and Japan, with abundance of executions un developing countries (colored red). The legal grounds of death penalty may also be quite different and somewhat questionable. While in certain states of the US death penalty is being excercised against maniacs, spree shooters and brutal murderers, in countries like the Saudi Arabia, Iran and China people may lose their life (in quite a legal way) because of blasphemy, adultery, theft or embezzlement (Reggio). The legal systems of various countries are far from being unified, and it leaves a lot of space for enterpretation of the crimes punishable by death. From the point of view of the Western public, however, death penalty for such rimes apears “exotic” and hardly acceptable, to say the least. The Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union were not sentencing people to death in the specific sense of the word. They claimed to be excercising the right of the society to get the highest degree of “social defence” against the convict (DPIC). Technically it happened to be the same as death penalty, but this statement also represents the social meaning of getting reed of the convict once and for all. Prisoners may be paroled, they may escape and continue their evil deeds. Death puts an end to the very theoretical possibility of the recidive. Therefore, death penalty may be an efficient tool of protecion of society against it’s enemies. The devil, however, is always in the details. What are the criteria for determining and evaluating the extent of harm to the society? Who is authorised to make such decisions? There are no ultimate, final answers to these questions so far. Economically the system of death penalty may be both beneficial and potentially unfavorable. This may sound tricky, even cynical, but if we apply logical scientific analysis here, such judgement may be justified. While convicts spend life in prison they may or may not be working, but they definitely exist on taxpayers’ money. It may cost a fortune to keep a convict for 50-70 years, while he or she provides zero or close to zero economic value (ACLU). On the other hand, if the convict is positioned into labor camps (as they do it in China), he or she may bring some economic value to the society.
- Cultural, historical and ideological issues concerning death penalty.
The cultural aspect of death penalty is probably the trickiest one. Every society has it’s own value of human life. In oriental fundamentalist society the life of human beings was traditionally far below the value of the ideas, be it in politics or religion. This shaped the existing system of death penalty as well as defined the range of crimes punishable by it. In China, for instance, financial crimes may not only be considered harmful for the national economy, but also for the existing system of values and hierarchy of power (Halperin). In Western democracies, which are greatly based on Christian values (even if most of such states separation of state and church is officially proclaimed), the value of human life is extremely high, therefore the grounds for death penalty, as well as the methods of it are minimized, if present at all. As it was mentioned before, death penalty may be a part of the historical traditions. Although it may hardly be considered an element of valuable historical heritage, such point of view helps to understand why it still exists and is being used. The relevance of this institution to the roots of the national political, social and cultural systems may, however, help to realize how it is going to evolve and transform over time. The fact that most of barbaric and inhumane ways of execution are now a part of the past rather than objective contemporary reality, gives some room for moderate optimism. Death penalty is often not just a way to get rid of any given convict, but also a message of ideological significance, both domestically and internationally. Let’s take public executions as an example. In Central Asia, in some of the ex-Soviet republics executions used to be even broadcasted over TV networks. Death penalty may be an efficient instrument of political manipulation, and the ideological component of such manipulation should not be underestimated.
- Physological and ethical considerations.
Psychologically death penalty has never been an easy thing, neither for the convict nor for the executioners and general public. The mistery of death undoubtedly requires a certain amount of respect (ELCA), and it is both ethical and reasonable to make the process as painless and swift as possible (of course, if it is not requested to be quite the opposite, but this practice is no longer present in modern civilized countries). From this point of view lethal injections, shooting and hanging by the neck (the way it used to be performed in the UK and still is performed in Japan) may be considered the most humane methods (NCADP). On the other hand, gas chamber or electric chair may be regarded to as both painful and potentially unethical. The ethical side of death penalty may be quite controversial. On the one hand, death by itself is the most feared and frightening thing within the existing system of values of humankind (USCCB). On the other hand, innocent people rarely get executed in the time of peace.
In my understanding, the system of death penalty is viable and acceptable, but only in the cases when this form of punishment is justified by the severity of the crime committed. The criteria of comparison and the way of implementation of such scheme lie beyond my competence and are yet to be determined by lawyers, politicians and social activists of the further generations.
References:
- Delaney, Andrew. Death Penalty Map (as of 2012). Capital Punishment: Should the Death Penalty be banned? Web. 25 April 2013.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Capital Punishment Project. Execution Methods. Web. 2013
- Halperin, Nick. Death Penalty News&Updates. Web. 2013
- Reggio, Michael H. History of the Death Penalty. Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 1997
- Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). Social Issues: Death Penalty. Web. September 4 1991
- Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). History of the Death Penalty. Web. 2013
- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death. Web. 2005
- ProCon. Should the Death Penalty be Allowed? Web. 11 April 2013
- National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP). About the Death Penalty. Web. 2013
- Death Penalty Focus (DPF). International Views on the Death Penalty. Web. 2013
