Capital punishment is immoral
Everyday many people are convicted of murder, rape, robbery with violence and other high profile crimes. The question is, which is the appropriate punishment for criminals? Should they be given life sentence without parole or should they be executed? Some countries have legalized capital punishment while in other countries, the death penalty is illegal. The controversy surrounding the morality of capital punishment continues to be one of the hottest debates today. Does anyone have the right to kill? Is it possible for a person who commits certain crimes to forfeit their human rights? Do murderers forfeit their right to life when they kill? Does killing deter crime? What about the execution of innocent people? Is capital punishment humane? What is the risk of a person who has killed to kill again? These are some of the questions surrounding the morality of the death penalty. This paper argues against the morality of the death penalty and that it should be abolished in all countries. Capital punishment is inhumane, it does not deter crime, there is the risk of executing innocent people, and it is retribution and not justice.
Capital punishment is immoral because it is inhumane. No one has the right to kill. Most of the killings are done through electric chairs or poisonous gases. How would you feel killing a fellow human being like you? According to the U.S Catholic conference, it is impossible to teach that killing is wrong by killing. Killing another person invokes the feelings of mercy and pity. According to McCafferty, the death penalty is inhumane, cruel, and degrading, regardless of its moral grounds (46). The way it is done causes pain and suffering to the convict. Execution amounts to torture, pain and suffering; hence it is wrong.
Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Death penalty should be banned because it is not a better deterrent of crime. Evidence shows that the death penalty is not a better deterrent of crime than other means. There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. The death penalty does not achieve the social goals of reducing crime. Punishment should make convicted offenders better persons in society. Capital punishment does not accomplish this goal because it does not give the offender a chance to rectify and reform. Punishments should be rehabilitative, and capital punishment does not accomplish this (Hochkammer, 70).
Thirdly, capital punishment degrades the value of human life. Everyone believes that human life is valuable. There is no point in which someone can forfeit their right to life. Even the worst criminals have the right to life. Human life is an inalienable right; even murderers have the right to live. A person cannot forfeit their human rights by their actions. Hence murderers do not forfeit their right to life because they killed. No one should intentionally take away the life of another where there is a feasible alternative.
The risk of executing innocents is another reason why capital punishment should be abolished. According to Amnesty International, 116 death convicts have been found innocent and exonerated since 1973 in the United States. These people have been found innocent, and convictions were made wrongly. There is no substantial evidence that the death penalty is applied discriminatory and that the risk of the sentencing of an innocent is incalculable, but the risk is not zero. This is clear evidence that an innocent person can be executed.
Capital punishment is morally wrong because it constitutes retribution and vengeance which are wrong. The United States Catholic Conference affirms that we cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. Capital punishment is similar to revenge, and revenge is wrong. What if we were to revenge for everything? Archbishop Desmond Tutu contends that taking a life when life has been lost is revenge and not justice.
Counter arguments to capital punishment centre their arguments on the fact that human beings by their actions can forfeit some of their rights, including the right to life. This means that murderers should not live and must be killed, too (Ehrlich, 34).
The other argument is that punishment should fit the crime and murderers should be killed. Since murder is the worst crime, it should be punished with the severest penalty, which is murder. They apply the principle of lex talionis, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The punishment should be the same as the crime so that a person who commits murder should be killed. This argument is flawed because I believe life without parole can match murder instead of the death penalty (Zimring, 28).
Concerning deterrence of crime, counterarguments argue that the death penalty deters crime by incapacitating the murderer. If the murderer is executed, it is 100% sure that this person will never kill again. They argue that vicious murderers should be killed to prevent them from killing again in or outside the prison. They contend that recidivism is possible to the convicted persons. There is a high risk that if people who are convicted of murder are not executed, they will kill again. A research done by Liem explored the patterns of recidivism among released homicide offenders (2632). The study showed that murderers relapsed and offended again by killing. The study also revealed that more than 50% of the 92 paroled homicide offenders recidivated, violently. Those who recidivated took a few years to re-offend after they were released.
They also argue that the death penalty deters crime by inflicting fear of potential murderers. This scares the future murderers because they fear to suffer the same fate (Hochkammer, 67). This helps in preventing future crime. However, this is not true because many people continue to kill even though they have witnessed other offenders being executed. Life sentence can be a better method of deterring crime than capital punishment (Hood, 331).
In conclusion, capital punishment is immoral and should be abolished in all countries. It is not only inhumane but also fails to deter crime. Additionally, human life is valuable and inalienable. This means no one can forfeit the right to life by their actions. Capital punishment is retribution and not justice. We should not revenge when wronged by others. Even though criminals should be punished for their crimes, there are better alternatives to punish them other than capital punishment. Such people can be given life sentence without parole, which can match the crimes they have committed. Countries which still execute people should consider abolishing it because it is inhumane and ineffective method of punishment.
