Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed?

The death penalty is a punishment of execution for crimes committed, an issue that has been debated in the United States for many years, and it has changed over decades and centuries. Many countries have executed the verdict for crimes, especially in America, which has a long history of the capital punishment. The argument for the capital punishment is that if a criminal takes the lives of others, he or she deserves the deathly punishment (Merino 211). Although the death penalty has significantly decreased crime rates, it is an inhuman punishment, in the sense that, innocent persons may wrongly be executed (Rade et al. 1-23). Consequentially, it increases the cost of the government and taxpayers, while everyone deserves a second chance to improve their behavior.

If this sample essay on"Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed?" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Trust an expert

The death penalty sentence has been executed on persons established to have committed serious offenses, including murder and rape. The execution cases are based on the judgments or verdicts, and the judgments must undergo various processes before achieving the desired objective of ultimate punishment (Garland 435-464). The results are usually accurate and reasonable, but they sometimes vary given the erroneous nature of human beings. According to the FBI database on the death sentence study, 4% of defendants sentenced to die are innocent (Lerner and Brenda 7). Additionally, the study concludes that were all innocent people given death sentences cleared of their offenses, the exoneration rate would rise from the actual rate of those released, which stands at1.6% to at least 4.1%. In this argument, the study demonstrates that not every judgment is precise. However, error-related statistics prove that at least one person died by wrong execution in every hundred persons executed. In fact, the innocence is proven after the completion of the death sentence procedure. It is inhuman and agonizing to note that courts make wrong judgments sometimes and innocent prisoners die through wrongful punishments. Subsequently, it proves that the death penalty is also an expensive form of punishment due to the fact that it demands immense funding.

In America, many of the state governments tax their residents annually. Additionally, the taxpayers pay more taxes during periods when the governments administer the death penalty programs. The huge costs gradually affect the country over the years economically. An article Price of Justice: Interest-Convergence, Cost, and the Anti-Death Penalty Movement by Jolie McLaughlin stated, The Miami Herald reported that the cost of the death penalty in Florida was

$3.2 million per execution compared to $600,000 for life imprisonment (McLaughlin). The costs of death penalty procedures include machinery, medicines, equipment, and the executor professionals. In the article, Florida is an example state used to explain that the cost of the death penalties is increasing the residents cost of living while influencing the relationship between citizens and the American government. Simultaneously, the government is tied to extra fees paid for the wrongful executions that are later on justified by an independent court of law. Genuinely, life imprisonment is less costly and merciful because the prisoners have a chance to improve while in the incarceration facilities (Grube et al. 81).

Every human being is imperfect and makes mistakes. On the same accord, every human being deserves a second chance to own up to his or her mistakes even after committing serious crimes. The death penalty sentence operates against the human right acts and the idea of a second chance given the inhuman nature of the process. According to Secondchances.asia, We have come together as concerned Singaporeans to advocate for change that we strongly believe leads to a better Singapore where every individual enjoys the full recognitions of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In line with this statement, nobody has the right to decide peoples life, and the death penalty is a form of revenge that dictates punishments offered back to prisoners. Singapore is one of the safest cities in the world as the government spends extensive resources to decreasing crime rates. Additionally, the percentage of the improved inmates is almost over 80% after executing correct judgment procedures. In this light, the reconstruction of a nation depends on the immediate forms of rehabilitation. Societies in the world should strive to give prisoners opportunities to show their progressive rehabilitation bars to their society as opposed to subjection to executions.

Some scholars agree with the thought of executing the death penalty since it efficiently decreases the crime rate naturally. Life imprisonment is less feared compared to the death penalty. As such, criminals may express a positive attitude towards wrongful actions. It is true that it limits the number of criminals within the local environments. However, the primary aim should be preventing people from engaging in criminal activity. In this view, the ultimate approach towards solving the matter is to educate the masses on the consequential effect of their crimes (Kukathas 198). The government and parents should enlighten the younger generations through social media, schools, and proper parenting to eliminate the commonality of crime. Overall, punishment is a way to preserve life and eliminating crime in the society. On the contrary, it does not include acts of mass murders. Even though the death penalty sentence would successfully eliminate negativity, it violates a large section of the human rights acts. The thoughts of wrongful execution by the Judiciary system should not be tolerated at all costs. Instead, the American government should learn to exercise impartiality for its people given the case that it observes the regulations provided within the United States Constitution.

The death penalty is a corporal punishment that has minimal impact on the immediate population of the convicts. The logic behind such accurate reasoning is that many of the death penalty felons are never given the opportunity to reform and be incorporated back to their societies. In fact, the offenders are denied the right to rehabilitate as they are executed upon issuance of verdicts. In this view, the department of justice should effectively reconsider the thought of justifying the practical punishment for the reprobates. Additionally, the death penalty also affects the economy and social welfare of the society directly. For instance, many of the affected families of the offenders live below the poverty line, given the provision factor by mostly men in the society (Breyer, Stephen and Joh 176). The elimination of the family providers creates a gap within the family institution resulting to financial overdependence on the remaining parent. Additionally, the execution of offenders gives rise to single parenthood, a contributing factor to poor parenting and youth delinquencies. The department of justice has also failed to prove suspects based on crimes committed. Consequently, defense attorneys and prosecutors have been reliant on racial apartheid, racial bias factors, and ethnic discrimination. Logically, Americans have witnessed wrongful convictions from the prejudice inclusions by the department of justice.

The capital punishment has also faced criticism, in the sense that, it has been served to the poor and lowly in the society. As a result, wealthy offenders have been proven innocent by the sheer factor of their affluence. In light of these developments, the counterargument to the death penalty sentence should be for the sake of individuals and societies that value equality. As a result, opposing the death penalty in America will mean that the world would retaliate against the unjust administration of these severe forms of punishments (Novak 176). Additionally, it would express the solidarity in erecting credible justice department systems within U.S.

Another important perspective to view the debatable matter is through arguing against the retribution factor. Naturally, revenge is viewed as a negative form of expressing human emotions. Many legal scholars would agree that the death penalty is a type of retribution since it targets to avenge the deaths or crimes committed against innocent victims. Given this acknowledgment, one would agree that administering the death sentence to criminals exemplifies the undesirable nature of the punishment. Other viewpoints in the revenge aspect also reveal that executing a person who has committed murder is justification to support the violence cycle within the society. Importantly, it contaminates the moral pillars of the society, which mandate for compassion and understanding. Lastly, a civilized society demands that every action remains transparent and accountable. However, if an innocent person is executed based on the erratic nature of the department of justice, it depicts the irony and implausible nature of civilized individuals. The legislative assemblies should understand the weight of their responsibilities in representing their countries and citizens. It is also noteworthy that the poor pay the revenues to sustain the death penalty procedures, which they are subjected to in most cases.

Works Cited

"Cheong Chun Yin | We Believe In Second Chances." Secondchances.asia. N.p., 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.

Breyer, Stephen G, and John D. Bessler. Against the Death Penalty. , 2016. Print.

Garland, David. "The peculiar forms of American capital punishment." social research (2007): 435-464.

Grube, Angela J., Shea R. Browning, and Danny P. Grube. "The NCAA Death Penalty: A Review of Legal and Business Implications." Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 18.1 (2015): 81.

Kukathas, Uma. Death Penalty. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Print.

Lerner, K L, and Brenda W. Lerner. Crime and Punishment: Essential Primary Sources. Detroit, Mich: Thomson Gale, 2006. Internet resource.

McLaughlin, Jolie. "Price of Justice: Interest-Convergence, Cost, and the Anti-Death Penalty Movement, The." Nw. UL Rev. 108 (2013): 675.

Merino, Noel. Death Penalty. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Greenhaven Press, 2015. Print

Novak, Andrew. The African Challenge to Global Death Penalty Abolition: International Human Rights Norms in Local Perspective. , 2016. Print.

Rade, Candalyn B., et al. "Systematic review of religious affiliations and beliefs as correlates of public attitudes toward capital punishment." Criminal Justice Studies (2016): 1-23.