Essay Sample on Death Penalty: Necessary Evil or Inhuman Punishment?

Introduction

Human life is a precious thing that deserves respect and being valued. Thus, even the worst murders should not be disadvantaged of their right to life, though if this privilege is misused, the death penalty becomes a necessary evil. The death penalty can also be referred to as capital punishment, and it means to a government-sanctioned exercise, where the nation kills a person as a punishment for an offense while the sentence is often termed as the death sentence. The examples of capital offenses are murder, terrorism, treason, mass murder, espionage plus crimes against a country as an effort to overthrow the ruling government, piracy, drug trafficking, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. The capital offenses depend on a country's choice and differ within a cultural region or political ideology. Therefore, depending on the severity of the crime, I tend to support the death penalty.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Murderer Deserve Death

A murderer should not be set free, but also deserve death in return. It is because a community accumulating these kinds of personnel would lead to a violent society in the future, where people never value each other's lives. Though, I think capital punishment should only be for severe crimes like murders, but not for other small forms of crimes. It will be very hurting for friends and the relatives of the victim, observing the offender moving freely in prison as if he committed nothing big. It is because the presence of that person may result in the victim's family craving revenge for their relative since they feel it is unfair. If the desire for vengeance becomes successful, it will merely mean more causality are involved in something that could have been ended by eliminating a single individual. Also, the presence of the murderer will influence the recovery of the victim's relatives and friends because every moment they see the person, their emotions, and painful memories are refreshed (Ezorsky, 2015). Therefore, I second Immanuel Kant's argument that murderers ought to have nothing better than death or even something else worse that is equivalent to what they committed. Kant asserts that the state deserves to be provided the right to kill a murderer. I agree with him because ending someone's life is something that should not be taken very lightly.

Right to Life

I perceive the death penalty to be the best option for severe crimes like murder to preserve other individuals' right to life. It is because a person loses his or her right to life if he or she begins a murderous attack, and the only option that victims have to save their lives is by eliminating this attacker. In layman's language, it is worth keeping a million lives and executing one instead of saving one and losing many lives. The action serves as an example to other individuals who are committing the same kind of crime by instilling fear in them. Thomas Aquinas argued that if any human being is considered to be dangerous in the society and he is undermining his right to life through many sins, the best treatment commended is his execution for the common good of the community (Ezorsky, 2015). Also, he alleged that killing a man who has maintained his innate worthiness is evil, though killing a murder is comparable to eliminating a beast. However, he made it clear that a doctor who is entrusted with the whole body should be responsible for chopping off the affected limb. Therefore, I draw from his argument that the death penalty should not be conducted recklessly by a person but by the entrusted authority. At the same time, the primary goal should for the common good of the entire community.

Criminals are Beyond Rehabilitation

I entirely support capital punishment not because it is the most suitable solution, but since I believe some criminals are beyond rehabilitation. Some criminals, whether they are locked up within a prison or out on the streets, they are forever going to represent a threat to someone. Therefore, capital punishment deals with this issue by removing critical factors from society permanently. A good example is a rapist or murderer who does not change whether locked for years or counseled. For instance, while in prison, this person continues to be involved in prison rapes, and when released, he becomes a threat to children since no kid that will he or she come along without committing sexual assaults. The person is taken for guidance and counseling, but it still does not work. In consideration of the dangers that the person exposes the victims of his or her sexual assaults, the death penalty remains the only solution. Therefore, it is better to kill and eliminate this threat from the community because the consequences of his actions are worse than the presence of the person (Haney, Weill & Lynch, 2015). Take, for example, this person passing HIV to a young child who is below ten years, and it means the future of kid is destroyed. I, therefore, fully support the death penalty to be passed to this rapist because the consequences of this crime are too severe to be ignored.

Zero Chance of Escape

The death penalty provides the individual no chance to escape the results of their serious crime. Since it abolishes the possibility of any illegal escape and if the person survives their execution attempt, the law permits for another trial to be made. It is for this reason that I entire supports capital punishment for serious crime because the criminal has no chance to escape the punishment illegally. For instance, if a terrorist is caught and subjected to a death penalty, but in the process of execution, he survives, the law permits another attempt to be made. Therefore, I tend to believe the death sentence remains the only best option for a person who only knows about killing and committing other nasty deeds within society. It is because some crimes do not deserve a second chance at all. It is apparent that prison escapes are real, and under this consideration, it simply means in case a crime of murder is incarcerated for life and manages to escape (Haney, Weill & Lynch, 2015). The person will be dangerous to those who filed a lawsuit and testified against their crimes to an extreme that causalities could be more than one. It is factual then to eliminate them once than exposing well-wishers who testified against the person to ensure justice is done in danger through such illegal escapes.

Reduce Overpopulation in Prison

Today, people are living longer than debatably at any other time within history. For instance, the criminal justice system of California became too overcrowded with incarcerated inmates that the federal laws courts had to step to risk or changes letting the convicted personnel loose since there was no extra room to house them. In such a situation, where the prison has ran out of space, it means even the worst murderer could be set free due to a lack of space to accommodate them (Hood & Hoyle, 2015). I arguably believe that instead of letting such criminal free and putting the society at risk, it is better to sentence them to death. Through the death penalty, the problem of lack of space will be solved, and there will be enough room for smaller crime criminals. My argument is not about portraying some criminals to be right; instead, I am attempting to reveal that those who have committed severe crimes should be eliminated to create space for those with small crimes. It is because the cruel crime criminals are mostly sentenced for life, and a high population of them means those sentenced for less term of the year will lack space. Therefore, my thinking is that they should be eliminated because even they are causing financial burden to taxpayers to cater to them. The most paining thing is that the citizen undergoes extra tax charges to provide for a murderer and child rapist. I say no to this kind of burden, let's eliminate them and end it. The amount can be used in the rehabilitation of those imprisoned for a lesser term rather than waste to people who are no longer of benefit to society. Since their entire life is limited within the prison walls.

Deterrent

The penalty for death always acts as a deterrent. It is because if people realize that if they are probable to be executed for the most severe of crime, then they tend to be less expected to commit them. The result of this is that every person loves their life, and no one ever desires to lose it (Hood & Hoyle, 2015). Therefore, telling the person that if they commit the crimes, they are likely to be sentenced to death instills fear on them. They would hence do whatever that counts to avoid being involved in cases like murder that can lead to the end of their lives. It is from this background that I tend to firmly support the death penalty depending on the severity of the crime. Since I believe a person knowing that a crime like murder could also cost their lives would result in avoiding committing it. Also, I perceive the death penalty to serve as an example to other criminals who are continuing to commit the same crimes, and this could lead to some reforming.

The Desire for Vengeance Is Satisfied

It is vivid that there is nothing painful in this world, like losing your loved ones, relatives, and friends. The depression that results from the loss is more power to make the person do anything without their awareness. It is because they are undergoing psychological effects that, to some extreme, turn them out of their mind, and they tend to react before thinking about it. In this condition, the most satisfying thing is to revenge back for their loved ones as long as they see the criminal alive (Haney, Weill & Lynch, 2015). In a situation like this, I believe that the death penalty is the best solution to take away the feeling. The reason behind my thinking is that this kind of punishment satisfies the natural human want for vengeance. Since executing the murderer eliminates vengeance out of private individual hands, and this helps to maintain social stability as well as satisfying the society's desire for revenge.

Conclusion

It is vivid from the discussion that the death penalty is not at all a new topic or something that began yesterday. It has had a long history that ranges from a single political ideology to a religious perspective because most religions are entirely not in support of it. I support the death penalty at all costs depending on the severity of the crime, and under my consideration, such crimes include murder and child rape. The reason I support the punishment for these crimes to be a death sentence is for several reasons. The first reason is to eliminate the desire for revenge by executing the criminal. Second, it is for the deterrent purpose to make sure that fear is instilled in people so that they avoid committing such crimes. The third thinking is to create space for short term jailed criminals by eliminating life-sentenced individuals. Fourth, it is making sure that there are zero chances of escape by these criminals. The next and fifth reasoning is that other criminals are beyond rehabilitation. Finally, I believe in saving the lives of millions and destroy one, and also murders deserve something equitable to their crimes like death. Based on this reasoning, I assert my support for the death penalty, depending on the severity of the crime.

References

Ezorsky, G. (Ed.). (2015). Philosophical perspectives on punishment. Suny Press.

Haney, C., Weill, J., & Lynch, M. (2015). The death penalty. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-16770-017.

Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2015). The death penalty: A worldwide perspective. OUP Oxford.