Capital Punishment

An Argument against Capital Punishment

I stand to argue for the motion that capital punishment should be abolished and replaced with life imprisonment no matter the gravity of a crime. I am also not in support of throwing people in prison for political reasons. To make my position clear, I oppose the death penalty for both the guilty and the innocent. I mean innocent in a sense that people who convicted of crimes based on probable without solid evidence to support the accusation. Individuals found guilty without reasonable doubt for committing hideous crimes against humanity should be put behind bars for life in order to provide a safe environment for all human being. I have several reasons to support my argument as to why I oppose the death penalty. I will use both “capital punishment and death penalty” interchangeably as I see fit, both have the same meaning. Capital punishment is “the lawful taking of a person’s life after conviction for a crime” (Flanders 3). Capital punishment violates the right of individuals to life, it is a cruel and inhuman means to put any one to death, it has no dissuasive effect on the accused or society, it is discriminatory in nature, it is against the teaching of Jesus Christ and against my religious belief, it is morally wrong and sparks violence and instability in society, it denies sinners the opportunity to make changes in life, and it is way of putting people to death to achieve political point. I know my opponents will dismiss the above claims and argue that the death penalty is less costly than life imprisonment, and that the death penalty deters others from committing similar crimes and even support their argument from a religious stand point. They will further argue that the death penalty is just because it is a “righteous anger” to pay back for those found guilty without reasonable doubt of atrocious crimes against another human being (Tivnan 157). However, the death penalty goes beyond the argument of cost, deterrence, the old teachings in the bible, and revenge. No matter the gravity of a crime an individual commits, one human life should not be sacrifice for another.

The proponents of capital punishment argue that, it costs the state and federal government less money to execute people convicted of capital crimes than to keep them in prison for life. They support their argument by saying that “citizens are already burdened with taxes that are high enough or that the limited amount of tax dollars collected should go to more worthy state programs”(Paternoster 187). Proponents of the death penalty argue that it costs the state or federal government more money to cater criminals sentenced to life imprisonment than those on death row and soon to be executed. These condemned criminals are no longer beneficial to the society and are rather liabilities to the state or the federal government. To those in favor of the death penalty, it is more beneficial to put condemned prisoners to death quickly than to keep them in prison for life. They believe it does not cost the state money to maintain equipments meant for execution. Those in favor of the death penalty further argue that it cost the state or federal government tons of money to feed prisoners. This money, they say, could be channeled into the educational system to provide a better future for the youth and the elderly.

Another reason why people support the death penalty is that it deters others from committing similar or different capital crimes in the future. Proponents of the death penalty argue that, “responsiveness to danger is generally found in human behavior; the danger can, but not, come from the law or from society; nor need it be explicitly verbalized” (Haag 282). The mere presence of danger prevents human beings from doing things that can cost them their lives. Unless the danger is intended to hurt, such as committing suicide, human beings will do anything possible to avoid it. No body in his or her right mind will jump from an airplane without enough training except to cause harm. These arguments are based on human instincts. Human behavior is based on results and when risk factors outweigh benefits, we try to refrain from these acts. Therefore, the argument here is not only about the law permitting capital punishment, but that human beings have some kind of fear or natural feelings that prevent them from committing crimes. This is where moral decision making comes into play. Moreover, when the punishment for capital crimes is light such as life imprisonment, it does not deter others from committing similar crimes because they know after all their lives will be spared.

The death penalty in all considerations violates the Universal Declaration of Human Right which recognizes each individual’s right to life. Article three of the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (Danchin). What the article means is that every human being is given the inherent characteristic of life which is basic and fundamental to all human beings. Without life, human existence is absolutely meaningless. The United State constitution also grants individuals such rights and call for the abolishment of capital punishment. However, because state and federal laws conflict each other, such laws cannot be followed strictly. No matter the gravity of a crime supposedly committed by the accused person, no law should infringe on the right granted by the constitution and God by taking human life. If capital punishment should be justified at all by any means, then mob justice should be the call of the day because it is a universal call by the masses. However, mob justice has been a thing of the past. Capital punishment to me is “an act of war on the part of society against the citizen that comes about when it is deemed necessary or useful to destroy” human existence (Cesare 66). Lets say, for instance, that a person accused of a capital crime happened to be at the site of the incident prior to the act and left evidence such as fingerprint; the actual killer, probably a professional serial killer, who knows better things that can incriminate him, cleans up his act without leaving any evidence around. He gets away with murder right? If charges are pressed against the accused person: are we not in the process of taking the life of an innocent person? There is a possibility of such mistakes to occur. There are obvious flaws in the system. Someone who happens to be at the right place but at the wrong time in this scenario ends up paying for a crime he never commits. Taking the life of this individual based on evidence found at the crime scene alone is not enough to justify his death.