5 Reasons To Oppose The Death Penalty
We must consign capital punishment to the history books. It’s cruel, it doesn’t deter all murders, and it’s irreversible.
“Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal’s deed, however calculated, can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date on which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not to be encountered in private life.”
— Albert Camus
When it comes to the death penalty, there are two distinct viewpoints. Some think capital punishment is fair and required; others believe it is excessive or even barbarous. Those in favour of the death penalty claim that it is only implemented when all other avenues of justice have been exhausted.
However, others argue that capital punishment is an act of revenge, and that it has no deterrent effect and can be abused. Even if someone has murdered previously, in their opinion, the most “premeditated” form of murder is to kill another human when there has been no immediate threat to you; as Camus’s writing says. And the death penalty, as they believe, is practically useless since they don’t believe that individuals who are violent and want to harm others will be deterred by the knowledge that they may be killed for their actions.
The second group is in my view right.
I feel that executions serve no benefit to society, and are only done for the illusion of security. Here are my arguments for why you should be against the death penalty.
The death penalty is ineffective as a deterrence to crime
Someone who murders has little regard for human life, but if longer prison time scares them away from doing it again, they didn’t kill in the first place because they were afraid of getting caught. Murderers never said to themselves, “I’m going to kill someone, but I won’t because I know if I do, I’ll be executed.” There is an extremely small chance that the death penalty will change the behaviour of those who are determined to commit murder since those criminals are carefully assessing the chances of being detected; those who would murder others regardless of the risks still would commit murder but will take steps to avoid getting caught.
The death penalty can only be a deterrence if it is a severe enough threat to prevent all persons from desiring to kill. But, if that’s the case, why isn’t it getting more attention? If it was to be used as a warning, the government would have used more drastic measures to ensure the people knew about it. Instead, they want it to seem like a private act, performed behind closed doors.
Instead, executions are often known only by way of rumours and news reports that one has already happened. The government never believes in the use of the death penalty as a deterrent, and has shown this by their inaction on the issue. If they did, it would be much more publicised so that all people knew about it.
If it worked as a deterrent, the death penalty would be utilised more often. Therefore, its infrequent use indicates that it does not work as a deterrent. Because they don’t think it is a strong enough deterrence, neither should you, as is evidenced by the fact that your government has concluded the same.
It Doesn’t Help the Victim’s Family
It’s impossible to ignore the fact that victims’ families want to see the killer of their loved one executed to pay for their crime. It does not matter what your views are on the death penalty. Is capital punishment the answer?
In certain situations, it might, but generally, it doesn’t. A vengeful mentality should not be included in the judicial system. Don’t you think it’s immoral to murder someone yourself? So why would you allow the state do it for you? If anything, the death sentence may exacerbate the killer’s rage and sorrow, not to mention the family’s pain at having to see the killer’s agony until they ultimately died.
The judicial system is meant to provide justice, not to provide an outlet for vengeance. A judicial system’s sole function is to keep society safe by upholding peace and order. Putting the murderer to death will not bring the victim back, will not help the family recover, will not provide peace, and will not prevent future murders from occurring; it will only result in more bereaved families.
As a result, the judicial system should not be involved in revenge. It should prioritise rehabilitation over vengeance, peace over violence, and harmony over hatred. It may seem utopian, but I think that we, as a species, need to stop being so eager to murder one other.
And I don’t mean to argue that you shouldn’t want the murderer to be punished, but that it’s not necessary to sentence the criminal to death. I assume you are aware that, as living beings, our lives are short, and we are unable to return from death. So, since death is final and there is no return, what precisely have you accomplished?
Even if the murderer is no longer there to do any more damage, the devastation they caused can never be reversed. The victim remains a victim, and is therefore dead. Their family is in mourning. There is one less person in the world. The murderer is dead, but everything else remains the same.
One last time, I’d want to know: what precisely have you accomplished through this?
It Fosters a Culture Of Violence
“The appropriate penalty for the offence.” “An eye for an eye,” they say. “He murdered my wife; I will murder his wife.” “Put a bullet through his head.”
These are all comments focused on brutal vengeance. We’ve all said or heard one of these things at some time in our lives. Violence is embedded in our daily lives. It defines our society. Violent actions are everywhere: in the movies, on the news, and in real life.
It’s unusual to think about the world changing, since we don’t often stop to ponder how society has to be transformed. To employ the death penalty only enables violence and provides more reasons for individuals to participate in it. The death penalty has to be done away with if we wish to live in a less violent society. It promotes the belief that murder is a good way to deal with problems.
The culture of violence feeds on itself. The more we do it, the more numb we get to it. It’s now becoming normal for us to tolerate things that civilised societies should never allow. The death penalty is a glaring illustration of how we’ve accepted violence and killing as a part of life.
This nightmare of violence is difficult to awaken from. It takes a lot of time, work, and individuals who really want to make things better to effect a change.
It is imperative that society evolve. Let’s put an end to violent approaches to dispute settlement. To start this drive toward a less violent future, we should begin by abolishing the death sentence altogether.
It Gives a Government the Power to Decide Who Lives and Dies
Let’s be honest, do you want politicians determining who is allowed to live and who has to die? The government has all the authority it needs now; adding more would be unnecessary. Power is the same as water and electricity: if it’s managed well, it’s immensely useful, but it can do incredible damage if it’s in the wrong hands.
You may believe that your government knows what they are doing when it comes to international and domestic affairs because you have faith in your local, state, and national governments. To some degree, I agree. It’s human nature to err, therefore governments are certain to fumble. However, when it comes to final choices about life and death, I doubt that any government has the moral capacity to do it right. Even the best individuals are certain to make mistakes at some point, so it seems sense that a government would also make mistakes.
If the government has control over who lives and who dies, they will have an immense amount of power, and they are likely to abuse it. History has shown this for us.
In almost every civilization and culture, individuals with the ability to decide life and death have existed in many factions. The luxury of being able to murder another human being was regarded as the greatest honour of all. Even now, there are numerous places where this remains true. In certain locations, the fact is evident more than others.
The ability to kill someone, whether legal or illegal, sows the seeds of corruption and abuse. It is common knowledge, courtesy of history.
When the judicial system fails, really terrible people have influence over decent people. If you break the law, you have little chance to survive when you are being protected by a system that supports law-abiding citizens and pursues those who have transgressed. In a nutshell, the elite has always had advantages over others who are disadvantaged.
So, if we give the government the authority to murder, it has the ability to get rid of anybody who poses a danger to it, even if that person is right and the government is wrong.
The government has shown many times that it is capable of making mistakes and breaching people’ rights. Denial, maybe, is the only way you can avoid seeing that our judicial system is presently misusing death punishment. False accusations are rampant. The system does not work, and individuals are often found guilty of crimes they did not commit.
You’ve got to be kidding yourself if you believe our judicial system is capable of dispensing justice perfectly. No matter who we are, we all feel some kind of vengeful motivation, and capital punishment is a manifestation of that instinct. If one of the country’s citizens is sentenced to death by the government for murder, does that seem appropriate? Obviously not. In contrast to what is being claimed, justice is served not by balance, but by imbalance.
Rather of giving the government greater authority, why not start by stripping some of its control? Our government’s role in our lives must be strictly defined, and we should restrict its power over us. Giving the government greater authority will just let it continue with its ineffectual crime and punishment cycles, along with the status quo, which is underwhelming at best.
It Incorrectly Assumes the Criminal’s Motivations
Many murders are not premeditated; they are crimes of passion. A wife discovers her husband’s infidelity, so she shoots him. When a man discovers that his business partner has been stealing from him, he kills him in retribution. When the father is investigating a suspicious noise in the kitchen, he encounters an intruder and engages in a violent fight. The intruder ends up dead, and the father, using a knife, is able to defend himself. Every one of these incidents are excellent illustrations of the crime of passion: The perpetrator had no thought of bloodshed on their mind when they woke up. No type of deterrence would have avoided these murders.
The conclusion drawn from this is that the death penalty did not have any effect on these killers and hence, did not serve as a deterrence. Only those who are aware of their planned crimes and consider the advantages of murder, then choose to commit it, deterred by the possibility of the death penalty. However, if you know that killing someone will result in your own death, you are less likely to do so. Right? That’s certainly a subject for debate.
The thing is, if you kill someone in the heat of the moment — when you are overcome with wrath and can’t think properly — you aren’t dissuaded by the death penalty. Does this imply that all murderers who are executed make a conscious decision to kill? No. And this is why the death penalty is irreversible: people are put to death regardless of their innocence or guilt. It’s impossible to predict until they’ve passed.
Now, I’m not saying these folks don’t deserve to be punished. They certainly do. Though the consequences of a death sentence are known, it is not worth it to risk having one’s life taken.
However, as I mentioned, the majority of murders are committed in the heat of the moment, when someone loses control of themselves and gets overcome by anger, grief, or some other strong emotion. When people are enraged, they’re unable to think beyond the emotion they’re feeling at the time. And it’s not uncommon for them to kill as a result of this.
These are the reasons why I think capital punishment should be removed from the books. My point is that murder is a terrible crime, but the punishment of execution is too horrific to sanction. Because it isn’t always certain whether a person who commits murder is making a careful plan or acting on impulse, it is irreversible. And even if it succeeds in deterring premeditated murders, it won’t stop killings carried out during the heat of the moment. The decision to sentence people to death even if they don’t have a premeditated murder, encourages prosecutors to request the death penalty more often, and people might die just because their response to provocation was inadequate.
It is hence with the greatest sincerity that I implore you to fight against the death penalty. Even if a few killers could be sent to death row, we shouldn’t use capital punishment to add fuel to the fire of brutality already brewing in our society. There is no debate over the results: The death penalty fails as a deterrent and, if anything, has gotten worse, so we must send it to the past and never return.
