Inhumane or Justice? -Death Penalty::The timeless question.

Centuries ago, the prevalent rule of thumb was an eye for an eye, or in some cases, a life for a life. So the question becomes have we advanced far enough in our social and political structures to ban the death penalty? Or when is the death penalty justifiable? Is the death penalty appropriate for an accidental homicide? How about for a mass murderer?


Death penalty is still practiced in 58 countries, and our country is one of them. Some view it as inhuman, some view it as it should be practiced. In this post, I will be exploring the for and against arguments about death penalty.


Why Death Penalty?

(i) as a means of retribution (ie they should die because they deserve to die); 
(ii) as a deterrent to others; 
(iii) to prevent any danger of re-offending.


First of all, death penalty is enforced to uphold justice. Some feel that justice means that good has to be rewarded and evil has to be punished. 

If someone commits the most egregious of crimes, such as raping and murdering a child or a woman, the perpetrator deserves to be executed. If a murderer is executed, than he cannot commit murder again. No one can be harmed by that murderer again, so technically the death penalty saves the lives of the innocent. 

Tools used to KILL (death penalty)

The history of criminal law has furnished a myriad of examples where convicted murderers were sentenced for a certain amount of time in prison. After the perpetrator got restored to liberty, he/she committed murder again. It could not be more obvious that such a criminal should NOT have been given a second chance. All of us have free will. Everyone can decide on their own whether they will muder innocent people or not. Those that does not want the capital punishment being inflicted on them should avoid murdering innocent people. In this context, death penalty acts as a deterrent for those who wants to commit a crime. 

A social contract should look like this - if you do not murder the innocent, we will not execute you. If you decide to take innocent lives anyway, you know the consequences, that is you will be executed.

Death penalty is supported because an adequate retribution for the most egregious crimes should be executed. Also, it protects the innocent population. With the death penalty, this also prevents the uprising of vigilante, which obviously causes social distress in a society. Without trust, nothing is possible.

If the whole world rescinds death penalty, it will foster egregious crimes and this will make the society more disorderly: there is no sense of security at all.

The death penalty is a kind of ancient penal code: it punishes the committing crime members.

NO to death penalty!

(i) killing someone is always wrong, and two wrongs can never make a right; 

(ii) there is in fact no evidence of a deterrent effect; 

(iii) life without parole is just as effective a way to prevent someone reoffending as executing them;

(iv) saving money can never be a justification for taking someone's life; 

(v) mistakes are bound to happen, and that means people being put to death for a crime they didn't commit (imagine if that were you or someone you loved).

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights thereby states in Article 3 that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. So there is indeed no reason for death penalty to stay.

"MAYBE THIS WILL TEACH YOU THAT IT'S MORALLY WRONG TO TO KILL PEOPLE!"
- HOW IRONIC

And statistics have shown that death penalty has no deterrent effects at all. The main reason that people commit crimes is due to financial reason. Another main contributing factor is that many people are uneducated, thus unaware of the crime that they are unconsciously committing. Crimes happen because of poor law enforcement. Death penalty is not a solution to crimes. To solve the problem, we have to review the causes that people commit crime.

I quote the great Mahatma Gandhi, "AN EYE FOR AN EYE MAKES THE WHOLE WORLD BLIND". Indeed, by fighting violence with violence will just encourage violence. On top of that, it is BARBARIC! 

In the 10 Commandments, it also states that "Thou shalt kill." 

So isn't it clear enough? Death penalty should definitely be abolished. 

However, I only would inflict the death penalty on those who commit the most egregious of crimes because there is a difference between murder and murder. If someone commits murder for material gain, for example rapes and kills a child/ woman, death penalty would definitely suit the murderer. But if, someone is caught up in a situation where he/ she is constantly being terrorized, and resulted in killing someone else in self defense, that would definitely not be in the criterion of death penalty. For example, in a situation where a pedophile father constantly rapes his own child and this resulted in the death of the father by the child, death penalty shouldn't be executed. The child should only be given a mild punishment/ punishments as most legal systems have mitigating factors for crimes, in this case, provocation and self defense. 

All in all, discretion should be used in this matter. Whilst I cannot agree on the total abolishment of death penalty, I propose that amendments should be made to improve the legislation of the death penalty.


NICOLE X