Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished

Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished

Introduction

Although the implementation of the death penalty has been a controversial topic over the years, it was reinstated by the landmark ruling by the U.S Supreme Court in 1976 (DPIC, 2019).  Since 1976, the number of executed people is around 1500, while around 2700 have been in death rows. According to DPIC (2019), approximately 29 states in the United States are currently practicing capital punishment. While supporters of the death penalty claim that it deters crime and is the best punishment for those who take other peoples’ lives, their arguments lack moral support. With the increasing crime cases, it is clear that the death penalty may not be a pragmatic approach to addressing crime. The death penalty is an outdated method inhibiting fundamental human rights and an uneconomical alternative that should be abolished.

Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished

In many scenarios, the decision to use the death penalty as a punishment for an offender follows several court trials. Such trials and proceedings result in high operational costs with no economic gain at the end. According to (Hood & Hoyle, 2015), the abolishment of the death penalty will eliminate not only lengthy and endless court proceedings but also bring economic ease and resource allocation within the judicial system. While opponents may justify the economic aspect of court cases, it would be wasteful to channel resources on activities with no return, such as death penalties. Other punishments, however, would allow criminals to change their behavior over time and become useful members of society.

There are cases when absolute judgments have led people to receive punishments for crimes they did not commit. Examples of such errors are the judgment of 2004 against Cameron Todd Willingham from Texas, who was convicted for setting a fire that ended up killing his three daughters. It was later discovered that Todd Willingham did not commit that crime after his execution (Sarat, 2018). Unlike other judgments that can be appealed or reviewed years later, a death sentence is irreversible once an  execution has taken place. There are more than 155 people who have been released from death rows in over 26 states in the U.S based on their innocence (DPIC, 2019). Since the cases of absolute judgments and errors in collection and presentation of evidence have been widely reported, it is necessary to abolish the death penalty to save innocent lives.

A death penalty is an inefficient approach to punishing offenders. First, the criminals undergo a lengthy and elaborate process, which allows them to make repeated appeals, thereby delaying the whole process or their wrongdoings ending up being dismissed. Besides, it is impractical to invest so heavily in the court process and kill the victim. Other punishment alternatives would allow the offender to serve a life sentence or go back to society after finishing their jail terms. In either way, such people may contribute to the community through different avenues (Hood & Hoyle, 2015).  Besides, there is no significant evidence to support the claim reduction in crime due to the implementation of death penalties. Thus, the death penalty doesn’t prove to be a viable way of crime control in contemporary society.

Although supporters of the death penalty suggest that it can be done more humanely, there are no humane way to taking someone’s life. According to Sarat (2018), death penalty is not only a deprivation of fundamental human rights but also subjecting people to a painful death in front of the public. Moreover, it goes against the fundamental values that constitute the democratic system. For instance, the brutal methods such as lethal injection, hanging, beheading, and shooting subjects the victims and their families to much pain. Flanders (2013) argues that how death penalties are brutally conducted; they may only perpetuate violence/crime among the families and friends of the victims instead of reducing crime.

The United States is a society that believes in respect for human life. Based on the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the U.S Constitution, it is controversial to practice death penalties.  Execution is viewed as an official homicide which endorses killing as a way of solving problems affecting our society (ACLU, 2012). Although many governments have not justified the benefits of death penalties all over the world, its continuous adoption in the U.S and other parts of the world is based on subjective notions. Besides, the resulting bloodshed and degradation of existing society decency are widely felt across the globe.

Conclusion

Death penalties remain to be a controversial topic among policymakers, legal practitioners, and the general public. Although it intends to reduce crime, there is limited information to show that its effective in crime control. Other than denying offenders their fundamental human rights, its uneconomical and inefficient approach to addressing crime and violence in contemporary society.  Besides, the death penalty interferes with the regular legal process. With increasing exoneration cases, continued use of the death penalty leads to the loss of innocent lives every year. Thus, the death penalty should be abolished. 

References

Flanders, C. (2013). The Case Against the Case Against the Death Penalty. New Criminal Law Review: In International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 595-620.

Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2015). The death penalty: A worldwide perspective. OUP Oxford.

Sarat, A. (2018). When the state kills: Capital punishment and the American condition. Princeton University Press.