Money

Human life is precious, but the worst murderers in America are sentenced to the death penalty for the crimes they commit. Furthermore, many countries around the world still use capital punishment, also known as the death penalty. Governments legally authorized the killing of someone as punishment for crime. Although the death penalty is applied to punish the worst criminals by executing them to give the victim’s family justice, it should be illegal because it’s expensive, errors can happen, and it violates the human right to live.

The death penalty has been around throughout world history, and it is as old as humankind history. Several methods of execution of capital punishment have been invented and used these include scorching by fire, hanging, forceful sinking, crucifixion, breaking on the wheel, hot water scorching to death, electrocution, shooting, use of poisonous gas and many others. The selection of the specific method to be applied was dependent on the social status of the convicted; this is an example in Europe during the Middle Age. The ways that deemed honorable and without pain were set aside for the upper classes, whereas those for the ordinary people were painful and disrespectful, for instance, hanging or being crashed on the wheel. Another determining factor for the method of choice was the time of occurrence of crime: heretics and sorceresses were scorched by fire to death at stake. Additionally, robbery and theft-related crimes were also meted with death penalty even in situations where none was physically injured during the event. A more humane method of execution was introduced by the French Revolution, and it includes the cutting off of heads of the convicted.

Many cases aimed at abolishing the death penalty have been launched with the first decision being made on 30 November 1786 in Granducato di Toscana by the Grand-duke Leopold II of Habsburg. Grand Duke ruled the penalty to be null and void and ordered the destruction of all the apparatus for murder in the country after getting the inspiration from the Italian book “On Crimes and Punishments.” The decree was a legacy in Tuscany and thus has been celebrated as a holiday since 2000.

The Amnesty International report of 2004 indicated that twenty-five countries had executed 3,797 people with China leading in the executions with 3400 instances. Kuwait led in the number of deaths of 400 for every 100,000 people, compared with China with 260 and Iran with 230, the last in the list recording 159 cases. Most of the countries inflict capital punishment to punish criminals for serious crimes related to physical injury such as war crimes. Asia uses the death penalty to punish crimes that are drug related; nevertheless, they are not associated with bodily harm.

The anti-capital punishment movements across the globe have influenced most countries towards the repeal of this method of punishment as well as the international organizations.  For example, the United Nations Convention on the Child Rights, prohibition of the death penalty for juveniles among other things have been signed and adopted by all its member nations with the exclusion of Somalia and the USA. Additional international treaties such as the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Second Voluntary Protocol to the International Agreement on Civil and Political Rights have both been adopted, but only the nations that have approved them are bound to them. To strictly enforce such amendments, some international organizations like the European Union have heightened the condition of membership as the removal of capital punishment (McGann, Anthony, and Wayne Sandholtz, 2012, p. 280). Therefore, nations are significantly being pressured to abolish the clause. The most prominent organizations among others that are pushing for the abolishment of the death penalty are Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Errors-innocent people die

The deliberations on capital punishment usually surround two main areas. The first argument is viewed from the perspective of utilitarianism in which the analysis tends to find out if the death penalty does assist in the prevention and minimization of crime and the associated risks of recidivism, in cases of repeated offenses by the criminals. The data for this scenario is obtained from the countries which execute death penalties. Secondly, the proponents or supporters of capital punishment should examine whether the execution is morally acceptable and whether human beings are warranted in ending the lives of other human beings.

Even though the views above fundamentally remain the same throughout history debates, support for or against can fluctuate, and the outcomes, however contentious, can influence the public opinion to either side. Therefore, maintenance for capital punishment is standard in countries that experience notorious murder cases. On the other hand, reduced rate of crime minimizes the support.

One argument against capital punishment is that the government spends a lot of money on the legal process when someone commits a capital crime.  In the article, “Death Penalty: Response to Ron Paul” Block explains how much money the government spends on the death penalty. Ron Paul who was a former Texas Representative says:        

It is hard to find a more wasteful and inefficient government program than the death penalty. New Hampshire recently spent over 4 million dollars prosecuting just two death penalty cases, while Jasper County in Texas raised property taxes by seven percent to pay for one death penalty case! A Duke University study found that replacing     North Carolina’s death penalty would save taxpayers approximately 22 million dollars in just two years (qtd.in Block, 2015, p.340).

In other words, it’s clear that the government is spending millions of dollars on the death penalty.  The reason they spend so much money is that they have to investigate the crime committed by an offender and the lengthy appeals process make legal costs are high.

Another argument against death penalty is that an innocent person could be killed. An error might happen in the investigation, and then an honest person could be put to death. Humans make mistakes when investigating crimes. “DNA is the most the reliable and the most regulated of all the forensic sciences. But every time you have human beings involved, mistakes can occur” (The Death Penalty, 2017, p. 11). Moreover, simple mistakes happen during an investigation of crime. In his article, “The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished” Bill Kurtis states:    

Simple mistakes. But it became the central piece of evidence that a jury used to convict     Krone of murder and sentence him to death. Some ten years later, DNA tests clear Krone as a suspect. A sexual offender who lived six blocks away from the victim was the match.     He later confessed to murdering (p.14).

That was an unfair justice for an innocent person to spend ten years in prison. It’s unbelievable to think that how that could happen.  A recent Chicago Tribune investigation found at least 381 homicide convictions across the country have been overturned since 1963 because prosecutors…concealed evidence of innocence or…used evidence they knew to be false” (Kurtis, 2017, p. 16).

Human right to live

“The death penalty violates the most basic of human rights, the right to live, of mainly Afro-American and working people” (The Death Penalty, 2017, p. 13).

Some people might argue that the death penalty gives the victim’s family justice, and it prevents people from committing murder. It provides the family with justice and also the victim’s family doesn’t have to worry about the murderers getting parole or escaping from jail. Plus, the death penalty prevents crimes by scaring people into not committing murder. “…common sense suggests that there are at least some people who will not murder if they think it may cost them their lives” (Stephens, 2017, p. 112). So the murderers get to experience the same fear and agony that the victim feels before the time of the death penalty. The government believes that “…killing offenders will stop the rise of violence’’ (Stephens, 2017, p. 112). The government says the death penalty will prevent violence and crime. Even when the murderers got caught and sentenced to life in prison, sometimes the murderers may escape from the jail. If they survive from jail, it will cause the people more anxiety and stress. The benefit of the death penalty is to seek justice for the victim and revenge for the family of the victim so that the family will feel peace and justice. The families of the victims feel peace and justice when the murderers are put to death.  

The argument against the death penalty as being too costly is arguable by the type of method chosen. The costs of the technique do vary, for instance, the most expensive one is lethal injection and is the one mostly adopted by America because it is usually considered as humane. The process is completed in three phases. First, the condemned victim is sedated and then paralyzed before injection of potassium chloride which cuts off the heartbeat. The less costly use of sedative thiopental sodium was once used in 2009 to kill convicts, and it only cost $168.03. However, this method is no longer available. Such a replacement of the substance of execution raised the cost of execution to $1,286.86 for each victim. It is on this basis alone that the opponents argue for the elimination of the capital punishment. But still there exist other less expensive methods. For instance, the electric chair has been used in Alabama, Virginian, and South Carolina, and it only incurs the start-up fee then the executions approximately cost $217.25 for every execution. The other method is one shot one kill instead of a firing squad. The Mongolian executioners have used a cheap revolver gun to execute by shooting directly at the neck region. Another example is in China and Taiwan where they use assault rifles which go for $539 only. Thus, the argument that death penalty should be abolished by costs incurred is subjective, and other less costly methods can be used instead.

The logic behind the argument of the possibility of executing innocent people is backed up by a range of cases in which the judges have had to apologize for either detaining people for many years or to execute them only to find out later that they were innocent. However, the discovery in most of these cases came up not because of any magic but because of an in-depth investigation of elite attorneys, journalists and as a result of the invention of sophisticated scientific methods of inquiry. Therefore, the argument should not be based on banishing the capital punishment entirely but on reforming the existing appeal and investigation processes. In most cases where the condemned convicts have been freed later, there is evidence of quick executions, minimal resources for the defense team, minimal appeal opportunities, permissibility of executions even in the face of substantial doubt about the guilt of the defendant. Based on the preceding arguments, it is clear that the problem of the death penalty is not with the execution itself but to the process of sentencing that is fraught with fundamental errors which are irreversible once the execution order is accomplished. The court systems should revise the tools and methods used in the investigation and ease the process of appeal to ensure that a condemned criminal is indeed guilty of the offense. Furthermore, the state should in such cases provide resources for the defendant instead of incurring a lot of money to execute a victim who may be innocent just because the irreversible process was hurried. Thus, the solution to death penalty lies at the reforming the execution processes and not abolishing it.

Argument against

All human beings have the right to live as is enshrined in the American constitution. The opponents of death penalty consider it as a violation of the human rights. However, the most popular and developed countries in the world still uphold capital punishment, for example, china and the United States. A total of 84 states who happen to be champions for human rights have not abolished the death penalty. The proponents of the death penalty argue that it is not a human rights issue, hence the reason for not joining the United Nations. This is because they say that none including the criminal is allowed to take other human rights to life and thus the most appropriate way of deterring this is to execute the guilty offender as a means of safeguarding the human rights to life. There is the scarcity of evidence of the argument of whether the death penalty is a human right issue or not. As before, the answer relies on the objective defined for the legal system: whether to preserve everyone’s welfare or is it intended to support people who live their lives harmlessly? If we share the same thoughts as those who are convinced that the system is supposed first to help the law-abiding citizens, then the emphasis will be inclined towards the prevention of deaths through murders as one of the significant evil caused by crime. Irrespective of our position regarding the human rights and capital punishment debate, it is proper that the lives of innocent and law abiding citizens are protected from the criminals (Manski and John, 2013, p. 128).

Conclusion

A lot of Issues surrounding the capital punishment are inexhaustible. For instance, one can assess the argument of the racist: arguing that the capital punishment is commonly passed upon the Afro-Americans as opposed to the European Americans and compare its connection to the rate of crime within the two groups. Moreover, the arguments on this topic from the ethical view can vary and be backed-up using numerous theories. Based on the opinions presented in this essay, it is likely that the valid reasons for the abolition of capital punishment supersede the arguments for a pro-death penalty. However, the arguments for capital punishment should be evaluated further.

Additional study into the topic is needful, with more focus on the deterrent effect of capital punishment on the crime rate in many countries across the globe. A specific point of concern would be the consideration of the historical background of the states adopting the death penalty in their legal system and their crime rate to examine the impact of the death penalty on the crime rate. My practical consideration is that the imposition of the existing death penalty should not continue even at the expense of preserving the lives of the law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, the death penalty is a violation of the human rights to live, very costly to use the somehow humane method, and innocent people are likely to be executed, which is irreversible.

References

Block, Walter E. “The Death Penalty: Response to Ron Paul.”  Criminal Justice Ethics 34.3

(2015): 340. EBSCOhost. Web. 2 Oct. 2017.

“Does The Death Penalty Discriminates?” The Death Penalty (1991): 11-14. Opposing

Viewpoints. Print. 2 Oct. 2017

Kurtis, Bill. “The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished” The Death Penalty: An Opposing Viewpoints Guide (2006): 13-20. Thomson Gale. Book. 2 Oct. 2017

Manski, Charles F., and John V. Pepper. “Deterrence and the death penalty: Partial

identification analysis using repeated cross sections.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 29.1 (2013): 123-141.

McGann, Anthony, and Wayne Sandholtz. “Patterns of death penalty abolition, 1960–2005:

Domestic and international factors.” International Studies Quarterly 56.2 (2012): 275-289.

Stephens, Matthew L. “Is the Death Penalty an Effective Punishment?” The Death Penalty (1991):112. Opposing Viewpoints. Print. 2 Oct. 2017.