Death penalty Imposition is illogical and capricious action. Making decision on who is justified to live or die for committing crime has minimal turn on the offence’s nature. Alongside this point the offenders incorrigibility forms a more indefensible and inappropriate considerations. The basic factors that affect the outcome of a court ruling may include the victim’s economic status, wealth of the defendants, the defendant’s counsel, quality and race and finally the resources put in place to defend the lawyers”. This is a famous quote from a former court of appeal judge named Gerald Heaney. Heaney said all these in his speech recorded under disgust felt in relation to imposition of death penalty. This speech was given out at the Amnesty International conference held in Orlando on innocence and death penalty.
There are several reasons why Gerald Heaney felt that death penalty should be discouraged. To begin with, death penalty has never served to reduce crime commitment. The morals and thoughts of people in the society vary. Putting up notices on threats in a place does not mean that all people will avoid committing the crime. No matter how severe the punishment is, there will be people who will still want to commit the murder.
As posted by Gerald Heaney, the second reason behind his refusal to the implementations of death sentence dwells on trespass for human rights. As a matter of fact, death penalty has been proven to exploit human dignity. Regardless of the crime a person has committed, it is surely not right to kill the person. At this level more lives are lost instead of the problem being addressed. Hence failure in the judiciary and conviction system will still prevail
Later in his speech, Gerald stated added that it is not easy to take away madness from a person just because we want him to stop committing murders.
Based on Gerald, it is often unethical for death penalty to be implemented since it does not allow chance for any appeal after execution. Sometimes the court approves the crime makers to be innocent after death has already been put in place. In this case, miscarriage of justice becomes irretrievable. However, it would be wrong to submit an innocent person to death penalty without putting proper justifications that would help to reverse the situation. Actually, answers cannot be retrieved from a criminal who is already dead. Ideally, the duration a criminal takes to stay on the death line is sometimes longer. As a matter of fact, the cost of death penalty is more expensive compared to putting a criminal in prison for life. This is heavily felt by the family members of the prisoner. Therefore it means that imprisonment should be opted for instead of death penalty since it is cost effective.
In conclusion, I support that death penalty should be done away with in every state. A case in point is noted in the United States of America’s system of laws and justice. In as much as it’s judicial system has advocated for the continued implementation of death penalties, crime rate has still remained high. Therefore making justice and law to be tough on the citizens does not mean that the crime rate will reduce; it may be even more than expected. All nations should consider eradication of such sentences from their systems. Instead of death penalty, nations should incorporate alternative disciplinary actions and charges against criminals. Amongst all the above mentioned points, it is vital to note that death penalty contradicts various religion practices. This in conjunction to the prevailing human rights violation has a lot of negative impacts on the social justice.