The main purpose of the criminal justice system is to retaliate and punish those who commit crimes in order to balance the scales of justice (). Building a safer, less violent society is a major challenge for the states and local communities (). In lieu, operational need for an execution system entrenched in legal cultures then is critical (, ). Capital punishment is viewed as a discrete subsystem in the criminal justice system () and an emblem of public policy ( and , ). Capital punishment, also called death penalty, refers to the legal execution as a punishment for a person convicted of committing a crime. Most states incorporates lethal injection as the sole method of execution whereas others tender electrocution as an alternative (). As a practice, capital punishments remained controversial, conflict-laden and problematic (). Perhaps the most common debate regarding the matter is its justification. Death penalty is directly proportional to murder. Although the justice system is capable of making mistakes and capital punishments preclude a court to correct wrongful executions and justice miscarriage, execution, as a state-sanctioned killing, actually values the respect we place on human life. Capital punishment directs to a valid purpose of ‘right to life’.
Incontrovertible arguments against death penalty underpin the following reasons: a ‘pay back’ society, cruel and unusual punishment, does not deter crime, less expensive than execution, violates human rights, innocent deaths and against Christianity. From a retributive perspective, the implication that criminals deserve punishment and that punishment must be equal to the harm done conforms to a foundational sphere of justice. Lex talionis, literally “an eye for an eye”, and lex salica are retribution punishments in kind and in compensation, respectively. The justness requires a fair compensation that sates ‘you had me down and now it is my turn to have you down’ (, ). Such inhumane concept is perceived to be morally wrong as well as the process of execution of capital punishment as ‘barbaric rituals’. Inspite of the reasons and methods of execution, death penalty cannot be separated from the concerns of human right protectionists (, ). Attesting to this matter, anti-death penalty movements and religious groups argue that capital punishment involved euphemism for legally taking a human life and that no one, not even the law, is above God.
Opponents emphasized that there are no statistical and conclusive evidences that death penalty actually deters crime. There is no direct correlation between death penalty and crime rate either (, ). Further, the belief that execution costs are less than imprisonment is a fallacy (). As argued, capital punishment is a counterproductive instrument of social control while unduly burdening the criminal justice system. He continued that post-conviction processes only enable a high-risk conviction of a wrong person and a possible execution of the innocents (). Human governments had evidences of inherent fallability that makes it unjust to perform execution.
In attempt to asses the effectiveness of capital punishment, horizontal and vertical arguments must be considered. As such, the perceptions on capital punishment differ since people may be directly and indirectly affected by death penalty. Blacks, for example, are more sensitive on issues of race and equality with regards to capital punishment and more likely to oppose compared to whites. People’s commitment to worldviews – utilitarians, abolitionists, seculars, etc. – cannot be persuaded that their position is mistaken. Ambiguities in public opinion purport a presupposition on penal systems that always exhibits ‘two sides of a coin’ effect (). In essence, a balance must reflect causality.
Recidivism, incapacitation, cost, retribution and deterrence are considered solid grounds of social acceptance of legal executions. The concept of recidivism is arbitrary. On the basis to prevent such, an executed murderer cannot possibly commit another crime, but for most first offenders, when released from prison are expected to be model citizens (). Moreover, death penalty incapacitates serious offenders while making money an exhaustible commodity to spend resources on other areas that need improvements such as poverty and heath programs. To wit, execution is very real and feasible compared to rehabilitation treatments; thus, retribution are justly deserved paybacks of the offenders for the harm caused ( and , ).
Deterrence mainly deals with shaping the attitudes. As and suggested, deterrence is more socially acceptable and has scientific basis into it (as cited in ). There are two forms of deterrence – specific and general. Specific deterrence is the use of criminal penalties to avoid potential reoffending while general deterrence is the use of penalties to dissuade other potential offenders from committing a crime (, ). The comparative cost of actual deterrence and possible incarceration and execution costs are fundamental and also complicated since costs of death penalty depends in part on the rights to which capital defendants are afforded. The ‘super due process’ includes the right of presenting mitigating evidences, extensive appellate right and the right to seek gubernatorial clemency (). Economic-wise capital punishments, as social control, are deemed effective.
On a personal standpoint, justice is impartial. Murderers relinquish their right to life once they took that right from another. A permanent foreclosure of all rights by the state conforms to the sense of justice is served including the right to life. Life is not repayable and it is only right to give-up a “bad life” rather than sacrificing the safety and protection of the society as a whole as the true essence of ‘right to life’. Sensibly, the criticisms regarding death penalty are more on implementation problems such as innocent convictions, faulty due process and brutal methods of execution among others. Systems recognize the fact that they are self-correcting; thus, it can be improved.
In sum, as capital punishment are increasingly becoming well-accepted, there are also efforts o abolished the process. At the very core of the system lies a posit with respect to human life that must be held with dignity and justice. For opponents, life could be genuinely protected if the society we are living in is compassionate enough to forgive and capable to value life itself in every sense of the word. Though death penalty does not actually deter criminality and proved to be cost-efficient, the reality remains that it challenges the morality of the people as well as the society towards ensuring a balance and a well-managed life processes. While from pro-death penalty’s view, capital punishment works not also as a deterrent device but also a recidivism. The legitimacy of death penalty measure up to a realistic process of a just society in order to protect innocent life as it effectively applies due Desert or the punishment fitting the crime.
Bibliography
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment