The death penalty has been employed for a considerable long time in maintaining harmony in the community of persons who had committed capital crimes. The application of the capital punishment is intended to bring solace to the victims of such crimes, and it varies from culture to culture. People on the death row are a threat to the society, and they should not be tolerated as they can cause more harm if not handled properly. Some of the crimes that constitute execution include rape, armed robbery, murder and drug trafficking. Such offenders may be electrocuted, gassed, hanged, shot, stoned beheaded or even lethal injected. In contrast, some perceive the death penalty as being barbaric and evil as they insist on retribution. Some argue that revenge is not of much benefit to the society as it stirs bitterness between the parties involved, especially in a case when judgment was not genuine. To understand this well, the way we treat or think of people facing the death penalty is to be analyzed keenly. The death penalty cuts a victims life short, but all this said and done, it needs to be embraced due to the benefits that it offers to society (Banner, 2003). Death penalty is a suitable, cheap, and fair as a manner of punishing criminals in comparison with other proposed forms of punishment for capital offenders, such as life imprisonment.
Buy The Death Penalty Issue essay paper online
The application of the death penalty is more humanitarian than any other form of punishment to criminals. Sentencing a criminal to life imprisonment without the ability to see the daylight later is more painful to the criminals. They are forced to face the consequences of their crimes from the day they are convicted to the day when they die. The death penalty, however, helps to end the intense and elongated level of suffering for a prisoner from an emotional perspective; thus, making it to be the best alternative form of punishment. On the other hand, those who oppose to the death penalty tend to view it as being inhumane given that it does not respect life and claiming that life must be respected and that the death penalty ought to be abolished.
Death penalty is seen as the best way of reinstating the balance of justice where the crime committed was grave, such as murder. The balance of justice cannot be reinstituted by other forms of punishment such as life imprisonment. The death penalty does not change over time as it is achieved upon conviction unlike other forms of punishment. Life imprisonment, for instance, changes over time given that the laws of a country keeps on changing as the political authorities change, and this may lead to criminals to be set free. By doing so, the victims of the crimes will feel that justice has not been served as they may not be of the opinion of the dynamics in the death penalty charge. A killer today may be set free tomorrow due to the changes in the law since without parole possibility, life in prison does not guarantee that a prisoner will remain there for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, those who are against the death penalty claim that with time people change and a killer today may be a better person in the days to come if they are given the chance to live. They argue that life imprisonment is much better as the prisoners must not spent their lives in prison as changes are bound to occur. Killing the convicted offender, however, rests the anxiety of those offended and they are saved from taking the law in their arms in case they feel the criminal is let loose easily. Many killings of criminals outside the justice system are cases of vengeance where the criminals are left to live in society.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
Cost is another relevant aspect considered in cases of the death penalty. The cost of imprisoning a prisoner for life is a bit expensive, especially when the prisoner appeals for his or her sentence. In such a case, the cost of life imprisonment will be much higher as services and housing for a lifer cost the government much than for a death row inmate. The anti-death penalty supporters, on the other hand, claim that the cost of executing a prisoner is much more expensive when compared to that of imprisoning them for life. It cost about $37 million to execute a death row inmate when compared to $1 million per year to keep a prisoner alive (Banner, 2003). In addition, the death penalty is employed in situations where there is a necessity, especially towards murder, treason, and desertion crimes. Therefore in a way, stopping the death penalty would expose society to these crimes, which is a costly thing to do in the long run. In most cases, people who commit these crimes are hardcore criminals whose rate of recidivism is very high. The death penalty should thus be upheld to avoid the cost of more murders and more treason, among other grave crimes.
The death row process presents more fairness in conviction and execution of prisoners. Given that the death row process is lengthy and exhaustible, it results to validity in the trial process. This gives criminals room to contest their condemnation from all angles, either the state’s government, Amnesty International, states court of appeals or the United States Supreme Court. Moreover, in times when the criminals have condemned to death, they still can appeal their decision for a period of up to three decades before they are executed. In contrast to the way the execution is conducted, the legal systems in favor of the death penalty value and respects human life; that is why in its effort of ending a human life serious precautions are undertaken to ensure that no mistakes are conducted. This ensures that only the guilty ones are executed since errors are mostly avoided in the entire process. Those against the death penalty claim that the judicial system has errors and this may make the innocent one’s to be executed. However, the truth is that there are many cases where prosecutors demand for death sentences which are dropped due to lack of evidence. In some cases, the public sees as if justice has not been served upon the release of suspects of murder and similar charges. Therefore, since the process leading to conviction is well catered for to ensure no mistakes are done, society members should not be alarmed. Indeed, society should embrace the death penalty process in which every relevant detail is put in consideration unlike in other trials where the prosecution asks for lesser sentences.
The death penalty is an effective tool in removing threats from the society. Most offenders who are being executed are considered to be dangerous to the society. Some criminals like Charles Lucky, who was the leader of the American organized crime even after being deported from America to Italy, continued to control the criminal gang. Others are capable of controlling their gangs from their prisons, which are mostly luxurious given that some of the prisoners are above the law enabling them to influence the outside world even when they are in prison. Such criminals who are mostly above the law are to be executed so that they could not harm more people and that peace could be maintained. People like Ted Bundy should be eliminated from the society to prevent them from devouring people in it.
The aspect of the death penalty when effectively employed results to deterrent of crime. The law-bide or die stance employed by the Singapore government has proved to be the most efficient and modest way of preventing capital crimes in the society. This explains the reasons as to why Singapore has the lowest rate of crime in the whole world. The best way of dealing with retribution on the victim’s side is to remember the welfare of the victim. This will call for focus on other issues not dealing with the welfare of the criminal, the judge, legal aspects and any other arguments on the death penalty. The major issue that will possibly encourage the death penalty is the harm caused by the offender to another person (Banner, 2003). For the sake of the victim, relatives of the victim and all those associated will be relieved to find justice. It's hurting for the victim to see the person who offended him/her free; thus, the only mean to a peaceful mind is justice.
Lastly, justice is the key drive towards the death penalty, especially when the punishment is considered fit to the crime. Every human being will be pleased to find justice to ensure that the society does not fall into cruel chaos driven by anger, madness of criminals and violence thus making it to be one of the major cornerstones of justice in the society. Moreover, the death penalty ensures that criminals are not in any position of harming any other person later in life as it erases criminals from the society hence being the best form of punishment. In the long run, stability in the society will be attained once the justice system is swift and fair in removing people who will destroy the society through crime. In contrast, the anti-death penalty claims that mistakes are bound to happen, though killing someone is wrong; two wrongs can never make a right and that without a parole, life is effective in preventing re-offending. Furthermore, the move of saving money cannot be compared to someone’s life and that there is no evidence of deterrent effect arguments which the proponents of the death penalty do not concur with.
In conclusion, there is a need to deter crime today and in the future. Human beings are in a position of making choices in life since they are not machines, and in case they err, they should be held responsible for their actions. Capital punishment should not be viewed as a vengeance mechanism of just getting back to the person who committed the crime, but as a tool of justice to the victims of the criminal activity (Banner, 2003). The punishment ought to fit the crime; hence, even though we value man’s life, the moment they were conducting that capital crime they should have been aware of that. The death penalty should, therefore, be enforced to prevent the dangers of re-offending, deter others, and since it is cheaper as compared to keeping an individual in prison. The death penalty should be embraced in our justice system as long as it helps in saving the lives of other people, but not as a tool for revenge.
Related Free Informative Essays
- Smart People, Dumb Decisions
- Humanities: Ancient Artistic and Architectural Features
- Gay Marriage
- The Role of the Controller/Treasurer in Fiscal Administration/Management
- Events as a Marketing Tool and Signature Events in US Universities
- Home-Style Cookies
- Benefits for Older Americans
- Racial Differences
- Significance of 9/11 attacks
Most popular orders