In every country in the world, different governments and civil right organizations argue or debate on the issue of death penalty and as it stands, this debate on whether to kill somebody as a form of punishment will not be easily decided. The laws on death penalty are not a recent thing, but it is well known far back as in Babylon, in the 18th century B.C as it was used in the King Hammurabi Code to punish those who were found guilty of different offence (Banner 126).
As there is an increase in population as years goes by, there is also increase of crime in the society which is extremely disturbing. Decision should be made once and for all on how to deal with the criminals who disturbs the peace of the society. Whether they should be killed or the death penalty abolished and better plans are put to death penalty to go with it. The way the criminals kill or disturb innocent lives, they should also be killed the same way without any consideration as long as they are found guilty of the offence.
Different people who are in support of the abolishing of the death penalty argue that if death penalty is left the way it is, innocent lives will be killed as one cannot proof that the person accused is guilty. They forget that we are now in a present time where different technologies like the DNA study and forensic study are in place, and can be used to determine whether the person is the real committer of the crime. For instance let's take the judgment that the Supreme Court made recently on the case of the Attorney General v/s Kigula Susan as well as other 417 people in the case No.
3/2006 of the constitution appeal that granted convicted robbers and murders freedom.
This means that these murderers and robbers will walk as free people out of prison and go back to the society to commit other murders and robbery.
These debates have made it difficult to execute people who have done wrong, putting the blame on the issues of error that may occur during the trial. This makes those in death row to go free because they might be innocent. The issue of doing away with death penalty to offenders just because it might be like killing innocent people, is the same way as saying to stop or not go for war with our enemies just because we are killing innocent lives. On doing this, we will be allowing the community to have several crimes and criminals because they know that they will not be killed even if they are found guilty (Palmer 45).
If you consider death penalty as unfair to the person who have committed a crime, how will you consider different terrorist attacks like the one in Washington DC and New York in 2001? For those terrorists, should we desist from executing them also because death penalty is unfair? Also assuming that "Osama Bin Laden" is still alive and the government has managed to arrest him and bring him to custody, should the government desist from executing him just because the death penalty is unfair. I know that some people will argue that Bin Laden's issue is different because he has killed thousands of people.
"On the same way, do the family members and relatives of a victim who has been killed be comfortable just because he killed only one person or two? This beats the logic of executing "Osama" and leaving a person who have killed just two people because he/ she might be innocent.
Let's also consider the reason why violent crimes have reduced in the society. There have to be a basis for this reduction. Now if the issue of death penalty is done away with, in my opinion you will see these crimes increase in a remarkably short time. "Why will this happen?" This is because the cruel, vicious criminals will know that even if they commit the crime, they can easily be free since the legal system can be easily manipulated. Take an example of the case of Yates Andrea and O.J who went Scot free and every one knows that they committed murder. How do relatives of the victims feel? They understand well that justice did not prevail in their situation at all. The capital murders should always face justice and abolishing death penalty is like snatching the people right to justice (Bedau and Cassell 156).
The issue of those on death awaiting for their death due to the unbearable crimes they committed being on that situation because of different reasons like poor defense, unfair prosecution, poor testimonies of the witness or even inability to make right decisions due to there mental states should not rise (Hurd).This is because before one decides to commit such an offense, he/ she have used his conscience. Also when the case is in court before the court or jury finds the person guilty, different evidence will have been produced in court together with forensic evidence that shows that the person is connected to the crime meaning that he/she has really committed a crime and is guilty. Therefore, there is no need for the anti death penalty activists to say that the criminal is being treated unfairly and his or her rights are being violated since in the first place the same person violated other people's right to live by killing them.
Therefore, those who want the death penalty to be abolished, are same as saying they want the society to be full of murderers and robbers and does not what so forever feel anything for the victim of the crime. They are also the kind of people who want more innocent lives to continue being taken by the vicious criminals without thinking of the general safety of the society which can lead to a more serious situation as the criminals will continue taking innocent lives without any fear. Furthermore, they should know that letting the prisoners free just because there is no death penalty is like letting them go and continue with the killing spree that they are used to doing.
Death penalty should be let to stay as it helps to streamline the society. Those who try to advocate for its removal like the anti death penalty people do not see the consequences of the outcome.
Leaving those who have committed murders go back to the society just because one thinks that the judgment is unfair is like allowing the enemies to know you secrets during wars. One should know that before one is considered for a death row, different evidence have already been produced, even through the help of those people in the forensic field, witness have testified, and there is no doubt that the accused is connected to the crime meaning that he or she has committed the crime, leaving the jury with no other option but to sentence the "criminal" to death row. Therefore, death penalty should stay as it is the only way to make sure people does not commit a capital offense and go Scot free. "Justice must prevail" and people should not be snatched there freedom of equality and justice.