Absolute judgments may lead to people paying for crimes they did not commit. Texas man Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas in for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three daughters. Following his execution, further evidence revealed that Willingham did not set the fire that caused their deaths. But it came too late. There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than a prison term. In fact, evidence reveals the opposite.
Other brutal methods of execution used around the world include hanging, shooting and beheading. Executions are often undertaken in an extremely public manner, with public hangings in Iran or live broadcasts of lethal injections in the US. The studies attempt to link executions with murder rate changes over time. They ask whether executions made a difference in the crime rate at a given period. While this is a valid research question, studies fail to take into account other variables that have direct effect on crime rate such as the effectiveness of the judicial system, demographic changes, and economic conditions.
Critics add that the findings are skewed by data from a few jurisdictions, largely from Texas, hence, it is not representative of national data Liptak, With so few actual executions, the data is thin and conclusions derived from it are considered weak and misleading. In conclusion, it would be safe to say that there is no clear and indisputable evidence to suggest that the death penalty is an effective means to deter people from committing crimes or murderers from killing again.
The ambiguous results of studies make the deterrence argument weak. They are not enough to justify executions. It is surprising how politicians continue to support death penalty instead of looking into more effective and reliable alternatives. Capital Punishment and the Supermax Alternative [Online] http: A New Debate [Online] http: The Future of Capital Punishment in the United.
However, later on this type of punishment came to be regarded as a crime against humanistic ideals by many, and its validity in the legal system has been questioned. Until now, the debate rages on. This resulted in a wide discrepancy of laws on this issue. Some nations including China, the US, Iran, Belarus, and others preserve the death penalty as an option, while others like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and almost all European nations have abolished capital punishment.
Still others keep the norm in their legislations, but have de facto suspended execution of criminals sentenced to capital punishment. This paper will seek to prove that death penalty has to be preserved as a valid means of prevention serious crimes.
It will examine the effect of death penalty on society and its relevance to the protection of interests of common citizens. The history of death penalty is almost as old as the history of mankind. Various means of capital punishment involved burning, hanging, drowning, crucifixion, breaking on the will, boiling to death, electrocution, firing squad, gassing - the list can be continued.
The choice of a particular method in Europe in the Middle Age, for instance, depended on the social status of the condemned. Painless and respectable ways were reserved for the aristocracy; and more painful for the common people, such as hanging or breaking on the wheel.
In other cases, the choice of the method was warranted by the time of crime: The French Revolution introduced a more humane execution method, the guillotine that cut off the heads of the condemned.
The duke cancelled the penalty and ordered to destroy all the instruments of murder in his nation after being influenced by the book the Italian Cesare Beccaria Dei Delitti e Delle Pene "On Crimes and Punishments". The anniversary of the decree is since celebrated as a holiday in Tuscany.
In , as reports Amnesty International, 3, people in 25 nations were executed. China accounts for the bulk of these executions - 3, cases. Kuwait is the leader in the number of executions per , residents - compared to in China and in Iran, the runner-up on the total number, Wikipedia. In most nations, death penalty is used to punish criminals for war crimes or serious crimes associated with physical injury.
In Asia Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand it is used to punish for drug-related crimes, even though these crimes are mot related to physical injury. As part of anti-death penalty movement, this call to repeal this measure has been upheld by various international organizations. Some international conventions such as the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights have been adopted, although they only bind nations that have ratified them.
Organizations like the European Union demand from new members the abolition of death penalty as a condition of entry. Thus, there is a significant pressure on nations to cancel it. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are two prominent organisations fighting against death penalty.
The issues involved in the discussion of death penalty usually focus around two main parts. First, this punishment is analysed from a purely utilitarian perspective in an effort to find out whether application of capital punishment really helps to deter crime and reduce the risk of recidivism, when criminals commit repeated crimes. The evidence for this is sought in crime rates in regions and nations where executions are carried out.
Second, supporters or opponents of death penalty need to find out whether this penalty can be acknowledged on moral grounds, solving the problem of whether human beings are justified in killing other human beings. Although the arguments stated remain basically the same throughout history of the discussion, evidence can vary, and the findings, although controversial, can tilt the public opinion to one or the other side. Thus, the support for death penalty surges in nations where especially outrageous murders take place.
On the contrary, a lower criminal rate reduces the support. Death penalty, in my view, has to be supported on the ground of just retribution for murder. Still, I do not believe in death as a form of punishment for drug dealers, however heinous their activities might be, since they did not violate human lives.
Political crimes should not be punished with death either, as this would open the way to political repression and physical elimination of political rivals, as it happened in Stalin's times in the Soviet Union. However, when a person murders another person, death is the right kind of retribution. This is analogous to penalties imposed for instance for robbery or theft - the criminal often has to forfeit one's possessions for taking the property of another person.
Similarly, it is fair that one who has consciously taken the life of another person should suffer death. Susstein and Adrian Vermeule, the authors suggest that death penalty is morally justified on the basis of distinction between acts and omissions. Most opponents of death penalty argue that it is barbaric for a government to take a human life since there is a difference between an act, such as killing a person, and omission, such as refraining from the act.
But, researchers argue, by forbidding official penalty, government officials de facto allow numerous private killings that are left unpunished. Therefore, punishing the criminals is a necessary part of any state policy. The interests of victims or potential victims of murders cannot be overlooked in order to consider the interests of the criminals guilty of the most heinous crime - taking a person's life. One of the most important arguments in favor of death penalty is the fact that it helps to deter capital crimes.
This issue is debatable since there have been suggestions that application of death penalty has no serious effects on the rate of murders, for instance. Besides, opponents of death penalty claim that it is not possible to deter so-called crimes-of-passion committed in an emotionally affected state when a person is not capable of thinking about future punishment.
The death penalty is a major issue that brings up a lot of arguments in our society. The most important question concerning the death penalty is whether it should be abolished or not.
Keywords: death penalty should be abolished essay. The death penalty is the act of punishing someone to death for an offense. Questions have been arisen to whether death penalty should be abolished in countries around the world. The pro's and con's of death penalty.
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished Essay Sample According to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), there have been executions in the United States since These executions have been performed through electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, firing squad, and the most common lethal injection, which over people have been executed by this method. Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished Why should the death penalty be abolished? The death penalty should be abolished because of many reasons. Many people believe the saying, 'an eye for an eye'. But when will people realize that just because someone may have killed a loved one that the best thing for that person is to die also.
“The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it.” (Amnesty, n.d) It is basically saying that by performing death penalty, it will not reduce . Essay about Death penalty. Declaration of Human Rights, the trend towards worldwide abolition of the death penalty is unmistakable. When the Declaration was adopted in , eight countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes; today, as of November , the number stands at