Thursday, 16 May 2013.
Is the death penalty in width? Who has the right to take your life? Should legal provisions override human life? There are a number of opinions in dealing with murder and death, and they have remained sentimental throughout the history of humanity. This is mainly because they determine the ultimate value of a given society for human life. In this context, the relationship between legal provisions and the ethical implications of life has a critical role to play in the various spheres of life. Over the centuries, the question of the death penalty remained controversial with the parties, which actively defended their positions. Those who oppose this form of punishment claim that it has many negative consequences for society and should therefore not be seen as a way to combat crime in our criminal justice systems. On the other hand, supporters of the death penalty argue that this is a justified practice, which is based only on the intensity of the pain and the harm suffered by the victims
Why should we support the death penalty? One of the leading arguments is that the death penalty is one of the widely known approaches to promoting justice in society. In her 2009 study, Beck, Brittto and Andrews noted that justice was only served when criminals were punished for their crimes. This is of paramount importance for the promotion of good governance, as justice and equality are always respected. As a result, the law, as it eliminates the criminals, scares the innocent citizens who are victims. In addition, the death penalty was the only way to punish certain offenders for crimes committed. When it comes to justice, it is worth drawing attention to the fact that the punishment handed down to a criminal court should reflect a significant crime. If this approach is not adopted, no society will be able to establish a fair and just justice system. Ophtentis, criminal offenders generally deserve it depending on the nature of the crimes committed before the law (Beck et al., 2009)
No one is against the fact that human life is sacred and must be protected by law at all costs. This is true for opponents and supporters of capital punishment. In this case, it is essential to ask yourself how many lives were taken from the face of the death penalty. What is better: to lose one person who threatens the lives of thousands or lives in danger and endangers society? Thus, it can be argued that the death penalty is not harmful to society and does not cause harm. As a rule, those who are subject to this form of justice have information on other serious crimes, including murder (Perlin, 2013). It was therefore justified to give them the death penalty, as they were sellers of death. Why should the law take the lives of the killers so that they are sacred when they don’t honor human life?
What about the cognitive abilities of people who commit capital crimes? As Perlin described in his 2013 survey, some criminals are usually under the influence of insanity, forcing them to act outside of social and legal norms. It should be noted that people work with criminal justice, and the law generally permits the possibility of commutation in such cases. While this is the case, studies show that these individuals are more likely to be engaged throughout their lives. For that reason, they would probably have done more harm and would have taken the lives of many people, thus bringing the course of justice to their age. In order to realize a fully just and equitable society, criminals with mental problems deserve the same treatment and must be punished
The death penalty has been proven to be a deterrent to crime by means of a deterrent effect (Goldberg, 2011). In most cases, the death penalty was a fear in society, which did not allow them to commit such criminal acts. In this regard, people are more aware of the consequences of crimes related to the commission of crimes and thus help the justice system achieve its objective. It may therefore be noted that the death penalty is effective in the future elimination of crimes that undermine the lives of people in society. This course is no less cheap and deserving of persecution than a merciful human face, threatening the entire population
While there are many reasons why the use of the death penalty should be encouraged, we also need to explore the other side of such an approach to promoting criminal justice in society. Has it ever been held that some people have been and are being unfairly implemented? For example, Allen, Kwubb and Lacey (2008) note that there are factors that influence decisions in most cases. One of the main factors is racism, where people have been unjustly transferred to the angels because of their origin, not the crime committed. This requires independent and flawless investigations before one of them is sentenced to death. Unlike any other punishment, death has serious and permanent consequences not only for the victims, but also for society as a whole. The criminal justice system should set up a mechanism to rule out unfair and erroneous decisions based on factors outside the legal framework of such a case as race (Allen, Clubb & Lacey, 2008)
From the above analysis, it is clear that the death penalty remains justified, despite the fact that the issue remains controversial. Among other things, the death penalty is less costly than other options. As a result, the criminal justice system can uphold justice and overemphasize the seriousness of crimes committed in society. It is also aimed at protecting the lives of innocent citizens of the country by destroying murderers that may threaten the entire population. Thus, future crimes will be monitored today. In making objective decisions, the death penalty has more advantages than demerpits, and must be upheld in society
Allen, H., Clubb, J. & Lacey, Vi. (2008).
Beck, E., Briitto, S. & Angrews, A. (2009).
Goldberg, J. (2011).
Perlin, M. (2013).