'The life of a human is sacred, and despite that it is an ideal which people would agree with to some extent, the taking of another person’s life has been termed as one of the most deplorable crimes in society.'
Capital punishment is Unjustifiable and should be Abolished
All along the history of civilization, humanity has always searched for ways to instill harmonious living in the community, devoid of injustices against one another. Punishment has been one of the measures used by the society to ensure that criminality and disobedience to the social constructs, laws, and regulations are adhered to by all. One of the punishments, which is an old tradition has been capital punishment, that is the execution of the transgressor for retribution of the crimes done against humanity and the society. However, concerns have been raised in the morality and effectiveness of the continued use of capital punishment in the society. Therefore, this paper will discuss the reasons why capital punishment should be abolished, and other appropriate measures adopted by the society.
The life of a human is sacred, and despite that it is an ideal which people would agree with to some extent, the taking of another person’s life has been termed as one of the most deplorable crimes in society. Therefore, many would demand the person to be met with the harshest punishment available, which is to exterminate the person from the living (Johnson 1034). However, this activity raises the moral dilemma of the modern civilization, is taking a life of a person who has taken another, or put the security of the nation into jeopardy be considered an appropriate punishment? There are several aspects which can be considered to espouse that capital punishment is the only available punishment for such crimes. Part of the society thinks that capital punishment is the only available retribution for the guilty, and in this case, all guilty people must be punished in the equal or above measure of what they have done. The severity of the crime, therefore, would determine the kind of punishment appropriate for consideration at that time. This is an argument which reflects the notion that people should be held responsible for their wrongdoings and each criminal should get what they deserve (Johnson 1034). This is for the justice system should reflect the abhorrence of the crime so that the public can gain an understanding of the consequences of punishment inherent for some crimes.
This is a sorry way of arguing for the justification for capital punishment, deriving its premise from the Christian mosaic laws of “an eye for an eye.” However, capital punishment based on retribution is a dubious concept of morality bearing the fact that it is no longer serves as retribution, but vengeance. In the United States, people sentenced to capital punishment serve many years in the death row, and this psychological aspect makes it more severe than the execution itself. Vengeance can be a daunting aspect because it can spur actions which one cannot take back, as capital punishment, once implemented on the individual is irreversible (Aspenson 100). There are instances where people have paid for crimes which they did not commit due to these absolute judgments. For example,Cameron Todd Willingham victim of capital punishment from Texas was accused of killing his daughters by setting fire to their home(Possley). In 2004, Mr. Willingham was executed for the crime of killing his three daughters. However, later evidence has shown that he was not responsible for the fire which killed his daughters, but it was too late to correct it. If Willingham were alive, new evidence would have acquitted him, but the absolute judgment had already taken an innocent life. In the United States, since 1973, 130 death row prisoners have been acquitted from it after new evidence has been found, with the victims spending an average of 11 years before they were exonerated (Yost 325). This is about a time when death row victims are executed in the country, where mistakes like those of Willingham have a probability of happening.
A common argument for capital punishment is that every person values their lives and death is feared by all. Therefore, having capital punishment deters criminal from killing other people, or committing other crimes which laws stipulate they warrant death penalty(Yost 329). The idea is that humiliating people in public during executions, and at times painful, would mete out horror to the society, in the extent that it would deter others from ever thinking of committing other similar crimes. This is in parts of the Asian countries like China where there is public sentencing from crimes such as drug trafficking. Some other countries execute by hanging or through firing squads which can be very humiliating and deemed painful (Yost 329).
Currently, there is no statistical evidence to show that deterrence work or it does not work. However, some reports have indicated that it does not work. Canada, for example, abolished capital punishment in 1976, and ever since the rates of murder in the country have been lowest since 1966 (Johnson 1038). On another part, deterrence can be compounded with many other factors such as the state of mind of the individual while committing the crime. Some of the murders committed happen when the person in such an emotional state where he or she cannot think of the consequences of the crime (Yost 331). In this case, capital punishment can only deter those people who were in their right state of mind to commit the crime, which is a very rare an occurrence. In most cases, such cases would take years to conclude, and this prolonged legal process would diminish the essence of deterrence to others. Amnesty International in 2009 indicated that there is no scientific evidence which can prove the capital punishment deters criminal activity, unlike life imprisonment.
Modern execution has always been assumed to be done in a humane and private state devoid of pain and suffering like that of hanging or firing squad. This painless means is through injections of lethal drugs where the person will die without suffering (Lowe 67). However, there is no way killing can be termed as humane as it is just a substitution of other brutal execution methods. For instance, Angel Nieves Diaz execution in 2006 caused serious issues with the methods used. His execution took 34 minutes and took two doses of the drug for him to be executed. Physicians have claimed that his death could have been probably very painful (Goldenberg). In this case, this kind of death can just continue the cycle of suffering and in a greater sense taking the life of another cannot alleviate the pain of the victim’s family. The United Nations has thrown weight into the matter denoting that executing people in public would only increase inhuman, cruel and the dehumanizing nature of the punishment only causes more harm to the society.
Most of the states in the United States give the accused the window to enter a plea bargain which will then help the police in apprehending other criminals. This is where the accused will offer the police information in exchange for getting a reduced sentence. In this case, when the possible sentence is death, the accused will have the incentive to provide information to have a lighter sentence, or even a lighter sentence without parole (Tor, Gazal-Ayal and Garcia 99). In this case, the argument is that the death penalty acts as a tool to be used by the police in their pursuit of closing cases. However, this is a very flimsy argument in support of the capital punishment and in this case, it is no different than the justification of torture by police to gain information from the accused. After the advancement of technology such as DNA testing, there have been instances where the corrupt police officers were found to have fabricated evidence, planted evidence or avoided crucial evidence which would have been essential in helping the accused prove their innocence (Tor, Gazal-Ayal and Garcia 103). Many of these accused persons complained that they had been coursed or forced to enter a guilty plea in exchange for lighter sentences. Some of these police officers wanted to improve their case closed ratings or finish cases before they retire.
For example, in Charlottesville, Earl Washington Jr. was awarded $2.25 million in 2006 for being sent to death for a rape and murder he did not commit. The investigator was found to have fabricated a confession which linked the accused to the crime and therefore presented a confession to the courts as a plea (The National Registry of Exonerations). Psychologists in the case testified that the investigator Curtis Reese Wilmore had wittingly exploited the mental deficit of Mr. Washington to coarse him into giving the confession. Therefore, he was sentenced based on the confession presented in court and served 18 years in the death row. His sentencing was commuted to life imprisonment in 1993 after DNA testing cast doubt into his case and in 2000, advanced DNA testing linked another convicted rapist to the crime (The National Registry of Exonerations).
Mr. Washington’s case, therefore, serves as a case where a law enforcement officer deliberately chose to deprive another person the right to live. Human lives are valuable, and everyone should strive to protect their sanctity, and cases of fabricated evidence is an example of a person committing murder indirectly. However much the case had involved a dead victim, choosing an innocent victim to close case is very unfortunate for the justice system. In this case, the rights to live for Mr. Washington was deliberately violated, in the pretext of giving a confession for the rape and the murder. Witnesses, who might be part of the crime, jurors, and prosecutors all can make mistakes and consider the flaws in the system; it can be easy for innocent people who are convicted for their crimes (Yost 334). This is especially if corrupt or unprofessional investigators have misled the court.
To conclude, capital punishment should be abolished everywhere in the world and other appropriate punishments chosen for crimes committed. Capital punishment is an absolute wrong which the society should refute by all means. It is an irreversible punishment which has in some cases resulted to the execution of other innocent people, and these casualties of the justice system cannot be justified on the severity of the crimes which others had been justly sentenced. Each human life is sacred, every person deserves to live, and normally, there is no evidence to show that capital punishment has deterred people from committing other crimes. It is imperative that the justice system considered other alternatives to punishment other than the death penalty. Capital punishment is unjustifiable, wrong, humiliating, dehumanizing and has no place in the 21st-century society
Works cited
Aspenson, Steve. "The Rescue Defence of Capital Punishment." Ratio 26.1 (2012): 91-105. Web.
Goldenberg, Suzanne. "America Turns Its Back On Death Penalty After Botched Lethal Injection Of Killer." the Guardian. N.p., 2007. Web. 8 Aug. 2018.
Johnson, David T. "American Capital Punishment In Comparative Perspective." Law & Social Inquiry 36.4 (2011): 1033-1061. Web.
Lowe, Sandra. "The Purpose Of Punishment: Capital Punishment." SSRN Electronic Journal(2012): n. pag. Web.
Possley, Maurice. "Fresh Doubts Over A Texas Execution New Evidence Revives Concerns That A Man Was Wrongly Put To Death In 2004." Washington Post. N.p., 2014. Web. 8 Aug. 2018.
The National Registry of Exonerations. "Earl Washington - National Registry Of Exonerations." Law.umich.edu. N.p., 2012. Web. 8 Aug. 2018.
Tor, Avishalom, Oren Gazal-Ayal, and Stephen M. Garcia. "Innocence, Fairness And The Willingness To Accept Plea Bargain Offers." SSRN Electronic Journal (2006): n. pag. Web.
Yost, Benjamin S. "The Irrevocability Of Capital Punishment." Journal of Social Philosophy42.3 (2011): 321-340. Web.
Comments