The Death Penalty
Research and debate on the death penalty is avidly one of the fastest growing political issues in the history of criminal justice. The issue has continually posed dynamics in our society on whether such an act or decree serves as a justified and valid form of punishment or not. It is indeed a matter of major controversy since the death penalty or otherwise capital punishment is the execution of a person by judicial process as a punishment for a crime. There are certain morals and effectiveness to having someone being punished in this manner; whether it is declaring a death sentence or execution itself, they are all still unjust. With that ...view middle of the document...
Hence, the death penalty is the worst solution because it does little to solve the case in a more clement way. Statistics has even shown that the institution of the death penalty is no great disincentive as there has not been any vast decrease in the number of murder rate in the legislative areas where the death penalty occurs. Moreover, there are other ways as to which crimes can be deterred without the involvement of capital punishment. According to the authors Mark and Hurwitz (1106), controlling drug usage or cutting down the amount of guns held in the possession of civilians, are two effective ways that can control crime. They believe that the death penalty should not be considered a possible option for preserving peace and justice. Thus, if at all the need for solving a case arises, long life sentence, is a more suitable solution to either controlling or deterring crime as opposed to the death penalty. However, the advocates for death penalty tend to argue that the death sentence has far reaching economic benefits compared to other forms of sentencing like the one stated above. They are positive that maintaining a long life sentence convict requires a lot of resources and they will rather choose the death penalty instead. On the other hand, it is not necessarily the case because capital punishment squanders an enormous energy of the whole justice system as well as prolonged court session that could otherwise help compensate the families of the victim. For the points above, the death penalty should be abolished.
Capital Punishment is not an antidote for violent crime so the death penalty is inhumane in nature. It is a form of cruel and unusual punishment which is a violation of the Eight Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The fact that punishment is a legal infliction of suffering means that it is somewhat cruel; as for being unusual, it is anything but, due to the long history of its usage (Jacobs, Landes, and Siegel). There is no question that killing another person is the most heinous crime one can commit but it seems that our government is being hypocritical when it states that capital punishment is allowable because, after all, the criminal did murder an innocent victim, and therefore should also be killed. This is known as the “eye-for-an-eye, and tooth-for-a- tooth mentality.” Obviously, if we used this theory frequently there would be no need for laws due to the fact that if a person hits me, I will hit the person right back. How simple, we all can be primitive again. Under this mindset, the death penalty should be abolished.
We are now in the 21st century, thus, living in a civilized period. Gone are the days of slavery and related barbarous acts when executions were commonly practiced. The death penalty can be compared to killing for pleasure and this act has been overtaken by events. The judicial system should cease to execute citizens all in the name of law or maintaining order. After all, there is not a single act that an...