Responses to this message:
The arguments in favour of the death penalty
Discussions involving the death penalty sometimes accumulate into situations where people raise their voice and start calling one another names. Often defenders of the death penalty are seen as fascistic and ignorant. This is a misconception, while most of the arguments are well thought-through and supporters come from various social and political backgrounds. I name some examples. Luther and Calvin both were important figures in the reformation of the Catholic Church. Goethe is a world famous and respected writer and poet. Bernard Shaw is a Nobel prize winning theatre writer and critic. Schopenhauer and Hegel were influential intellectuals.
Many people see that when conclusive evidence proves a person guilty of murder, and that his actions are the result of his general character, this person has proved himself unworthy to the fellowship of mankind and to life in general. The punishment should fit the crime and therefore he should be put to death. This sentence is considered as the cruellest of all, but is in fact more a proof of humanity to the criminal than lifelong imprisonment. What comparison can there be between a rapid death and an entire life between four walls, waiting for the end of what may be a long life, cut off from all pleasant sights and sounds, from all hope.
Those who oppose to the death penalty say that it does not inspire fear, and that experience proves it to be a failure. But the influence of a punishment is not to be estimated by its effect on hardened criminals who have grown to care less about it. Mainly it should be measured by the impression it makes on those who are still innocent. But who is capable to do so? We partially know the criminals that were not influenced by the threat of the death penalty. But who can tell how many people it saved from becoming criminals if they hadn't associated murder with death penalty from their early years as a child? Let us not forget that the most impressive fact loses its power if it is made too cheap. This means that when less serious crimes like theft would be punished with death penalty, killing someone wouldn't make the punishment any worse. This also means that when the Juridical system is afraid to punish someone for a certain crime, it loses most of its credibility. And this is the case at present. A criminal who is sentenced for a certain years of imprisonment almost certainly gets free on parole many years before the actual date set. The criminal is considered as a victim. In some cases the media even make him a martyr or a hero. Who still can be surprised justice fails? Penalties are so ludicrously inadequate, they are almost an encouragement to the crime. It are the families of murder victims who are in need of financial and emotional support to help them recover from their loss and resume their lives. But instead they are left in the cold and suffer the great injustice done.
However opponents of the death penalty have one undeniable argument, which never can be entirely god rid of If by an error of Justice an innocent person is put to death, the mistake can never be corrected. No juridical system exists that is infallible. Around the world a few dozens of cases are known where an executed person afterwards appears to be innocent. But uncountable cases more are known where a criminal is dismissed from jail and starts killing again. This certainly leaves a bitter taste; if you realise all these killings could be avoided.
Another aspect of the plead against the death penalty is the argument that it is discriminating and racial. This is a problem that does not belong in the discussion death penalty yes or no. It belongs in the debate for an accurate and careful Justice. These are two different issues. Law should always be observed sincerely, and discrimination is possible in all levels of Justice (like a policeman giving a parking ticket to someone). Death penalty or not does not change a thing about this.
It is said that death penalty is not actual punishment. When a person is executed, he learns no lesson. He or she cannot say: "Hey! I learned my lesson. I surely won't do that again!", for he or she is dead. This argument is totally irrelevant. At a certain point you have lost all credit and you have to take responsibility for your actions. The same goes for teenagers and mentally retarded people. Here you could make the comparison to cases where a wild animal kills a human. The animal maybe did not realise what it was doing, but it gets killed anyway. The risk is far too great that it will kill again just because it does not realise what it 's doing. Everybody knows and respects the basic rules of law. Otherwise society becomes a total chaos. And this is the difference between death penalty and murder. Death penalty protects all members of society against generally accepted and clearly defined abuses. While, murder is only for the benefit of the criminals and their accomplices.
There exist various objections against imprisonment of heavy criminals. It is the question if financial discussions are appropriate in these ethical discussions, but except for some cases death penalty costs less than imprisonment. It is proven that prisons are centres where criminals share information and "know how", which is always nice for when they get out.
These are the most important arguments in favour of the death penalty. Which ever ideas you might have, take a look at them, in a way you can make up your own opinion, and not the opinion you think people expect from you.
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread