Should the United States Abolish Death Penalty? - Essay Sample

Introduction

The death penalty is a concern that has separated the American society into two. While there are many enthusiasts of it, there is also a great level of disagreement. Presently, there are 33 states where capital punishment is legal while 17 states disapprove it. There are numerous reasons why the death penalty should be legalized or should not be legitimate in all states. They include ethics, vengeance, and dissuasion. When viewed from this perspective, one may claim that capital punishment is a suitable way of dissuading would-be offenders from corporal crime. Severe crimes like assassination and rape are one on the wrongdoings that are a focus for the death penalty. This essay examines the reasons for capital punishment not to be abolished.

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

Save 25%

One reason why capital punishment is a defensible form of penalty is that-it assures populace's security. Mandery (2011) asserts that the chief reason for capital punishment is that it assures that capital criminals will never return to their way back to the crimes. Additionally, corporal punishment addresses the possible gaps related to the penitentiary framework in this concern. Capital punishment assures that corporal criminals are debilitated totally and will never run away from jail. In line with this opinion, she further asserts that capital punishment is an effective punishment strategy. Additionally, the author asserts that the only way that the cities can be devoid of capital criminals is by adopting capital punishment, which in return, assures public security and safety.

The other reason why capital punishment ought to be integrated as a form of sentence for capital crimes stems from its punitive authority. Some author's assert that capital criminals like rapists, violent criminals, and killers require adequate sentence because of the atrocious nature of their capital wrongdoings. Gavrila (2011) maintains that capital punishment is commensurate to the gravity of the capital offenses submitted. The baseline is that capital criminals require punishment that has an equivalent measure of the wrongdoing they did. For a long time, humanity has dependably viewed murder as the worst crime on another person. It is evident that capital punishment is both retributive and correctional. From the corrective measure viewpoint, it is highly reasonable that capital offenses can be rebuffed by subjecting the wrongdoer to a similar circumstance that the guilty party set his/her casualty. From the reformatory point of view, it is faultless that capital punishment is the key equivalent sentence that can be accorded to capital offenses, like, killing (Hodgkinson & Schabas, 2004).

Capital punishment ought to continue for the objective of eliminating the wrongdoings of the general public. Additionally, death penalty acts as a restrictive measure and functions as a device for lessening wrongdoing. Deterrence means to punish someone to be an example for others and to instill fear in other people for the punishment. Capital punishment is one of those inhumane sentences that would instill fear in the thoughts of any normal person. Ernest van den Haag, in his manuscript "On Deterrence and the Death Penalty," states, "One desists from risky actions because of uncertain, immature, ordinary and entirely, preconscious worries" (Garvila, 2011). Every individual fears death, even creatures. Most criminals would think twice in case they understood their own lives would be terminated for killing others. Though there is no empirical proof that the death penalty deters criminal acts, we have to approve that most individuals fear death. Supposing there is no capital punishment in a state and life imprisonment without bail is the extreme penalty- people would continue engaging in capital crimes because they will not die for their crimes.

As Atwell (2004) argues, capital punishment is in line with the goals of the criminal justice system, which is preventing illegal activities. According to logical choice theory, the most efficient crime dissuasion method should put fear by preventing people from taking part in abnormal or felonious conduct and prompting their logical decision-making process (Neumayer 2008). From this perspective, Atwell (2004) asserts that the restrictive capacity of the death penalty can be attributed to the cruelty of punishment. Capital punishment is the severest sentence and assures dissuasion, public security, and payback.

Counter-Argument

The critics of the death penalty argue that the death penalty is immoral. They argue that there is plausibility of mistake. Notwithstanding, the prospect that there may be an error is distinguished from the concern of whether the death penalty can be defended or not. According to Gavrila (2011), in case an error does appear, and an innocent person is murdered, then the problem lies in the court system, not in corporal punishment. Besides, most capital offenses are based on facts, where individuals are included, have a plausibility of damage or death. It is also clear that the benefits of having dangerous murderers barred from our society exceed the calamities of the guilty side.

The other claim against capital punishment is that it is inappropriately administered. A report by Neumayer (2008) notes that impoverished individuals and minorities will likely get capital punishment. In addition, this is a dissimilar concern. It cannot be debated because the wealthy will probably get away with a reduced penalty, and this tendency is not appropriate. In any case, this is yet another concern for our modern court context. The ethnic and monetary inclination is not a substantial assertion against the death penalty. It is a claim against the law court and their unreasonable framework of punishing.

The third assertion is a rebuttal to a statement made by a few enthusiasts of the death penalty. The assertion is that the danger of the capital punishment lessens ruthless defilements. Challengers of the death penalty do not agree and have a legitimate argument when they say, "The instances that capital punishment lessens brutal offense is indefinite and certainly not established" (Neumayer, 2008). The other assertion is that the period of stay on death row, with its unlimited assistance, delays, details, and retrials, keeps a man waiting for death for many years. It is both cruel and expensive. This is the least reliable proclamation against the death penalty.

Conclusion

In the end, the paper agrees that the death penalty is good. Society has continually applied punishment to incapacitate would-be culprits from dishonest acts. Since humanity has the most noteworthy eagerness for forestalling killing, it should utilize the most founded punishment available to dissuade murder, and that is capital punishment. In case the killers are condemned to capital punishment and executed, prospective murderers will reassess before killing because of a suspicious fear of parting with their own particular life. When somebody ends a life, the balance of equity is aggravated. Unless that balance is reestablished, society submits to an administration of brutality. Only the taking of the murderer's life restores the equilibrium and licenses society to demonstrate persuasively that killing is an intolerable offense which will be repulsed in kind.

References

Atwell, W. (2004). Evolving Standards of Decency: Popular Culture and Capital Punishment. New York: Lang Peter.

Gavrila, A. (2011). "Should The Death Penalty Be Abolished? Arguments For And Against The Centuries-Old Punishment." Journal of Communication and Culture 1(2): 82-98.

Hodgkinson, P. & Schabas, W. (2004). Capital Punishment: Strategies for Abolition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mandery, E. (2011). Capital Punishment in America: A Balanced Examination. New York: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Neumayer, E. (2008). "Death Penalty Abolition and the Ratification of the Second Optional Protocol." The International Journal of Human Rights 12(1). 3-21.