Capital punishment has been a topic of ferocious debate for decades between human rights organizations and government policy makers. Also known as the death penalty, capital punishment can be served to criminals via beheading, hanging, electrocution, lethal injection and shooting. According to Amnesty International, a global movement for human rights, as of 2010, there are 96 capital punishment abolitionist countries in the world. In addition, there are 139 countries that support and practice capital punishment in their justice systems. In line with that, capital punishment should not be abolished because of retribution, incapacitation and deterrence.
Firstly, A criminal undergoes the death penalty as retribution- deserving and inevitable punishment through death for the crime that he committed. This is most evident in the cases of murderers. As they made a choice to intentionally take away a life, they simultaneously, forfeit their own right to live and have to face the consequences in front of the law. This might be superficially seen as revengeful or employing an “eye for an eye” approach but that is only applicable if a human does it, not the law. As Edward van den Haag, John M. Olin Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy of Fordham University mentioned (1986), the law’s punishments were never created to avenge or compensate for the victim’s suffering. Rather it is used to “vindicate the law and the social order undermined by the crime”. In addition, families of the victim would have a chance of experiencing a better closure if they know that the person that killed their loved one suffered retribution through death. Opponents of capital punishments can argue that how is one able to judge which crimes receive the death sentence as retribution and which don’t. For example, Singapore hands out capital punishment for drug trafficking but Japan only does for treason and homicide. But let us think about it, is it possible to actually devise a proper way of judging how to do that? Every country would have the same kind of laws then, let alone the ones related to capital punishment. By committing a crime, the criminal automatically assumed the risk of facing legal punishment and if that is capital punishment, so be it.
Secondly, an offender is incapacitated; meaning his ability to commit further offenses is eliminated when capital punishment is performed on him. It is a country’s duty and moral obligation to protect its citizens as much as possible. By letting a criminal out and allowing the possibility for him to recidivate, we are putting the lives of citizens in danger. Thus, it is better to execute him. Supporters of abolishing capital punishment often mention about the value of life and how we as humans, do not have the right to take away the life of the offender. But it is plain that the values of potential victims’ lives are worth more than the criminal’s due to the crime that he purposely did. In addition, the Supreme Court of United States of America mentioned (1976) that “the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death”. For example, well-known terrorist leader, Osama Bin Laden was shot to death by an US operation military unit on May 2nd, 2011. His continual crimes against humanity through terrorism deserved him capital punishment and he was stopped from taking away more innocents’ lives.
Lastly, an offender who goes through capital punishment for the crime he committed, deters others from doing the crime. Famous playwright John Webster wrote “Death hath ten thousand several doors. For men to take their exits.” and it is rare that someone would want to take their “exit” as a criminal and the law as the Grim Reaper. According to the research done by Dezhbakhsh, Rubin and Shepherd in 2003, “capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders—with a margin of error of plus or minus ten.” Deterrence does occur because the fear of death is innate in all of us. Since hearing the tales of Captain Hook sending Peter Pan to walk the plank or Snow White eating the poisoned apple, from a young age, death has been portrayed as a negative thing and the finality of it scares us. People, then would not commit crimes that would result them in receiving capital punishment because, simply, they do not want to die and not especially in a painful way under the scrutiny of law. There has been research suggesting that capital punishment does not deter offenders but as John McAdams, professor of Political Science at Marquette University said (1997)“If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former”.
In conclusion, capital punishment is a much needed strategy in the justice systems of countries because it is a form of retribution, incapacitation and deterrence. If all countries are converted into abolitionists, it might give rise to dire consequences in society. Though reviews can be made to the how capital punishment is carried out to make it more shorter and sharper to avoid unnecessary excessive pain for the offender, it is not right to abolish it all together as it is just justified to punish those who deserve it.
Reference List
Rogers, S. (2011). Death penalty statistics, country by country. The Guardian. Retrieved 12 January 2012 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/29/death-penalty-countries-world
Van Den Haag, E. (1986). The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense. PBS. Retrieved 12 January 2012 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/haagarticle.html
Marshall, J. (1976). Gregg v. Georgia. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 12 January 2012 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0428_0153_ZD1.html
Dezhbakhsh,H. ,Rubin, P.H., & Shepherd, J.M. (2003). Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data [Abstract]. American Law and Economics Review, 5, 344-376. Doi: 10.1093/aler/ahg021
Archer, D., Sarat, A. & McAdams, J. (1997). Purposes of the Death Penalty. American Bar Association. Retrieved 12 January 2012 from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/focus_on_law_studies_home/publiced_focus_spr97pur.html
No comments:
Post a Comment