The death penalty shouldnt be banned as a form of punishment

The use of death penalty in our criminal justice system remains a social, religious and political controversy. Opponents of death penalty claim it contradicts the right to life as dictated for in both the Bible and the American constitution (Garvey, 2003). Still, those against use of death or capital punishment claim that it can be used discriminatively leading to execution of innocent citizens (Sharp, 1997). However, death penalty is the best tool for combating capital crime in the American community. Death penalty gives a lasting solution to capital crimes since the dead will never commit crime against the community. Another reason is that it reduces chances of poor influence on other members to become criminals or to attempt committing serious felony (Garvey, 2003).

Death penalty gives equitable justice to members of the community as it gives murderous an equal punishment for their crime. The paper is written in support of the thesis that the death penalty should not be banned as a form of punishment as it helps protect Americans against serial capital crime offenders. Examples are given to support the use of death penalty in combating capital crime in the community.

The death penalty should not be banned as a form of punishment
Death penalty involves the legal execution of criminals who have been convicted of committing serious felony in the society. This means that the criminals, upon death, have no chance of committing such crimes again (Garvey, 2003). The main purpose of a government is to protect its citizens from all forms of security threats. According to existing research findings, it is quite clear that the capital crime offenders have a higher probability of re-committing serious felonies upon their release (Patterson, 2006). This means that by failing to execute capital crime offenders, the government is putting the security of its citizens at risk. Just to be stated is the fact that the expression of wisdom in any human community is signified by engaging in lasting solution to problems affecting the community. It is indeed due to this reason why the federal government is investing heavily on the war against terrorism. Reflecting this to the debate on death penalty, capital crime offenders risk our lives just like terrorists, however little in magnitude it could be (Garvey, 2003). Therefore, we should employ legal execution to realize an end to the security threats posed by capital crime offenders in the community.

Opponents of using death penalty in our criminal justice system claim it can lead to execution of innocent members of the society (Garvey, 2003). This has not been substantially proved. The human community is evidently marked with falsification of information for the purposes of misleading the public opinion. If there is any evidence of innocent executions, then it should be loudly condemned and proper legal measures taken to those responsible. We should indeed be calling for perfection of the arresting, charging and convicting process to reduce wrong convictions. In this modern era, we are witnessing high technological advancements particularly in forensics. This is evidence enough that with our law enforcement agencies having these accurate and highly reliable technologies, conviction of innocent citizens should never occur (Garvey, 2003). This thus eliminates the question of using death penalty to execute innocent members of the community.

Life imprisonment of criminals is not lasting solution to combating capital crime in the society.  This is first because life sentences do not eliminate the poor influence that capital crime offenders have on others (Cassell,  Bedau, 2004). While in prison or jail, these dangerous criminals are great threat in the society. This is because they training other prisoners on criminology, an act which serves to increase crime attitude of prisoners upon release rather than realizing effective rehabilitation for simply crime offenders. This should be seen to increase crime networks thus risking escalation of insecurity problem in the society.  On the other side, the cost of retaining serious felony offender for a lifetime in jail is quite high compared to the costing of executing them (Cassell,  Bedau, 2004). Therefore, death penalty should not be banned as it is cost effective compared to the cost of housing a capital crime offender behind bars for a lifetime.

Still, death penalty as a legal punishment instills some sense of fear on other criminals in the society (Geraghty, 2004). Death is feared by many in the society. Therefore, by imposing death penalty punishment on criminals, other criminal planning to commit crime will be threatened thus greatly saving the lives of thousands who could have been at risk. Opponents of death penalty claim that it contradicts religious and constitutional provisions. On religion, the laws of our American nation are quite clear in separating state from religion (Bienen, 1999). This can also be reason from the justice point of view. What is the point forgiving one who neither repents nor forgives Where is justice to be found if those who kill others will be given a light sentencing The relatives of the murdered should see justice done. It is based on the reasoning that death penalty should continue being used for ensuring equitable justice between the offender and the victim.

Opponents claim the death penalty does not deter criminology in the society. However, existing statistical evidence has it clear that capital crime rates have sufficiently reduced due to the use of death (Sharp, 1997). Indeed states which are using death penalty, such as California and Texas have low crime rates than those which have (Cassell  Bedau, 2004). According to psychological evidence, the process of human development, character and behavior is much by influence of the character of other members of the society. Therefore, based on these reasoning, killers, if allowed to continue living in the society will always result in the propagation criminal behavior among other members of the society (Garvey, 2003).  It is thus only by executing capital crime offenders that the society will be moving in the right direction towards the sustainable realization of security and value for our societal culture.
The question of racial discrimination in executing death penalty punishments is a misleading claim against the upholding justice in the society. When people claim that most victims of death penalty are African Americans and Hispanic, then it should only be logical to accept that these American communities have more people convicted of capital crimes than others in the U.S. (Garvey, 2003).

Branding communities as minorities must never be an excuse for compromising the provisions of the law. According to available statistics on crime prevalence, these two communities indeed top the list. Therefore, it is only baseless to claim that punish the massive wrongs across race is racial discrimination.

The purpose of punishment is to restore justice, peace and order in the society. By the laws of nature, orderly, and justice can be achieved if and only every individual to what is worth his or her sweat. In other words failure by in social system to reciprocate through punishment the liberty, lives, and peace of its members taken away by criminals is a sign of failed justice (Geraghty, 2004). This call for the giving criminals a punishment equal to the harm they have caused to others. Therefore, capital crime offender must be given capital punishment as it is only such that matches the damage they cause in the society.

Some opponents of the use of death penalty in our criminal justice system claim it discriminates the economically challenged (Cassell  Bedau, 2004). The past few decades have seen the effective implementation of public defender systems comprised of highly qualified lawyers for the defense of economically challenged defendants. The question of quality of public attorneys is a negation of facts. Why do these attorneys keep a long time legacy of reasonable offender defense yet one death penalty conviction is used as a proof to their capabilities Therefore, low income by offenders is not a quite significance reason against the use of death penalty in our criminal justice system.

According to statistics, death penalty serves effectively in combating criminal acts in the society. It kills the killer thus ensuring justice for the victim as well as deterring the offender from committing crime again. Death penalty, by eliminating criminal individuals from the society, serves to reduce criminology by eliminating poor influence to others in the society (Garvey, 2003). The purpose of the law is to bring law and order in the society. By committing a capital therefore, death penalty should be used as a remedy to lawlessness in the community (Cassell  Bedau, 2004).

The question of discriminative sentencing of criminals to death penalty and possible execution of innocent citizens lies squarely on the question of integrity of our criminal justice system. This should therefore not be an excuse for banning death penalty. It should be indeed a wake up call for streamlining our criminal justice system to reflect the rule of law and order. Therefore, death penalty should not be banned as a form of punishment as it helps protect Americans against serial capital crime offenders.


Post a Comment