The action of capital punishment has always been and will remain to be a very controversial topic within our society. Many believe that the death penalty is a just punishment while others find it inhumane and protest against it. Each side has various arguments and reasoning to support their opinions. One of main argument used to protest against the death penalty is the logic behind Gandhi’s quote “an eye for eye makes the whole world blind.” Although morally this ideal seems to be a sufficient argument against the death penalty, there are various other arguments that help support the abolishment of the death penalty such as the deterrence factor, human morals, and the absurd amount of money.
Murder is ultimately a disrespect to human life and death is an irrevocable action. A society with respect and consideration for one another would refrain from the use of killing a human as a way to enforce morals and laws among those in society. Capital punishment justifies that murder is a way of punishment, which leads to the downfall of our society and the destruction of the morals that have been established within our communities. This not only justifies acting out of revenge but will forever forbid ones right to life arguably denying one’s due process of law. In the case of the death penalty, there is no revoking a conviction or releasing someone from jail if they’re falsely convicted. Many have argued, even regarding the most severe crimes, that this form of capital punishment violates the 8th amendment right of the criminal, allowing them to face cruel and unusual punishment. The idea of cruel and unusual punishment doesn’t apply solely to the act of committing the execution but the idea that one can be sentenced to death only to then have their innocence uncovered. This punishment not only violates human dignity, but demonstrates the decline in human decency and our society in thinking that these action are just. It also turns out that the death penalty results in a lot of misplaced sympathy. Rather than focusing on the mourning family of the victim and establishing a fair punishment, the focus on the long drawn out process of appeals often outshines the crime being dealt with and ends up becoming a pity party for the victim, resulting in no one gaining anything from the execution in the end. The act of sentencing a killer to the death penalty will not bring back the victim, resulting in taking a life for ultimately no reason other than to conduct a barbaric punishment, leaving behind two grieving families, no clear resolution and no closure for either party.
Many in favor of the death penalty believe that the implementation would not only act as a resolution to the problem at hand as well as deter crime, but this is in fact false. There is no statistical data that proves the rate of homicide to be decreasing with the enforcing of the death penalty. In fact, southern states carry out more than 80 percent of the executions but have a higher murder rate than any other region. Texas has by far the most executions, but its homicide rate is twice that of Wisconsin, the first state to abolish the death penalty. (Carter) When analyzing the numbers within these statistics and realizing how small in fact they are; it displays how the death penalty wouldn’t really be able to deter crime unless it is being used merely as a scare factor considering it’s not even used that often. Last year roughly 14,000 murders were committed but only 35 executions took place and only 8,032 people have been sentenced to death from 1977 until 2012. (Blume) “Since murderers typically expose themselves to far greater immediate risks, the likelihood is incredibly remote that some small chance of execution many years after committing a crime will influence the behavior of a sociopathic deviant who would otherwise be willing to kill if his only penalty were life imprisonment.” (Donohue) This being said, when talking about sociopaths or those with mental disabilities as well as those acting on impulse or out of emotion, the consequences at hand most likely aren’t being evaluated beforehand. Those who are willing to commit a crime such as homicide, most likely won’t be concerned about their well-being nonetheless the consequences. Fear of the death penalty may cause some to hesitate, but it hasn’t been proven as a great enough force to completely deter crime. This fact is not only proven by stats but by those in law enforcement. Police officers were polled being asked what the most effective form of deterring crime was and the death penalty was ranked last following: adding more officers on the streets, gun control, curbing drug use and longer jail sentences.
The death penalty itself is not only inhumane but unjust and illogical. Not only does the system require those convicted to be on death row for upwards of a decade but they are isolated from other inmates and face many restrictions such as spending 23 hours a day alone. Those on death row are considered to face multiple punishments; one being their actual death sentence as well as the time confined on death row. They also live with continuous uncertainty as to when they will be executed. Psychologists have claimed that many death row confines acquire “death row syndrome,” which makes them suicidal and delusional based on their living conditions. Now it makes sense as to why some argue that life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent than the death penalty. In addition to these foul living conditions, the time spent on death row has increased over the years. This not only counterintuitive but brings about high costs for taxpayers. (Blume) A report of the Washington State Bar Association found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty and that doesn't take into account the cost of court personnel. (Erb) Many make suggestions to shorten the appeals process in order to lower these taxes but this has yet to happen and most likely won’t due to the fact that the lengthy process is necessary in order to avoid any wrongful convictions as well as decide if the death penalty is completely necessary. Although it may not seem like a huge number in comparison to the number of convictions, authors of [a] study say that their “conservative estimate of the proportion of erroneous convictions” is 4.1 percent, or approximately twice the number actually exonerated and set free from death row. This could mean that approximately 120 of the roughly 3,000 inmates on death row in America might not be guilty, while additional scores of wrongfully convicted inmates are serving life in prison after their death sentences were reduced over technical legal errors. (Drehle) The fact that thousands of people have been wrongfully convicted and put to death is an unfathomable and unacceptable statistic that’s only solution is to abolish the death penalty.
The arguments in favor of capital punishment stem from the idea that for crimes of an especially heinous nature, it is necessary to deliver the ultimate punishment. The standard crimes under which the death penalty may be sentenced are murder, high crimes and treason against the state such as being spy for a foreign power. Using the old saying of “an eye for an eye” would dictate that for what crime you commit, an equal act must be committed against you. When a criminal commits homicide they have single handedly ended one’s life and deprived them of everything they once had and were to have. It is only justifiable for this to be returned in favor. It can be argued that those who have committed these heinous crimes felt as though they were above the law and put themselves above all those among society. The perpetrators have chosen to act in this manner and should be held accountable for their actions. The death penalty holds criminals accountable for their actions and provides a sense of closure for the family and friends of the victim. It also promotes a sense of wellbeing and safety among society. This gives all those in society peace of mind knowing that perpetrators are off of the streets and will never be able to commit crimes in the future. This is when the idea of recidivism comes in, which is also a main argument defending the death penalty. Capital punishment is also the only true irreversible punishment where many people sentenced to prison for murder may not be sentenced to life or may be able to be paroled for good behavior. No good behavior can make up for the intentional and permanent taking of someone’s life. Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year. (Cooper) This shows that although some may argue that the death penalty doesn’t deter crime, it does in fact prevent against prisoners who are released from committing crimes in the future, ultimately reducing the recidivism rate.
The main point that should be taken away from this is that criminals are humans too and deserve to be treated like so. Although, they did commit heinous crimes, it is simply unconstitutional and unjust to treat other humans in such a barbaric manner in order to teach them and society a lesson so paradoxical to our current values. There is no such thing as a humane method to putting someone to death. In the end, no matter if the execution goes perfectly and they die a quick, painless death or if the execution is botched and the victim experiences long periods of pain, they have still been treated as a mere means to a vengeful unresolved solution. In the end, it Is quite clear that the death penalty provides a poor solution to a serious issue and also creates other problems. These problems such as the extra cost, accepted injustice and conflicts of arbitrarily not only have the potential to degrade our economy but societies values and ideals as a whole. Is this really necessary? Is the degradation of human life ever justifiable? I think not, and this is why the death penalty should be abolished.