Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Arguments against Death Penalty
Arguments for Death Penalty
Death Penalty Policies around the World
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The area of the current research concerns the death penalty and whether it might be abolished in the future. Various experts have argued against the lethal sentence policies claiming that they are unethical, barbaric, and economically unfavorable. However, in the academic field, some authorities continue to justify this punishment method. The current research reviews various articles and websites concerning the lethal sentence controversies and establishes the correlation between the existing works. As a result, the main flaws within the present scholarship are the unresolved issue of whether death penalty policies are effective or not and whether there are any benefits to society from the lethal sentence. The authorities do not seem to find a consensus on this issue, but there is a prospect that this problem will be resolved in future works.

Arguments against Death Penalty

The first argument against the lethal sentence is a lack of deterrence among criminals. According to Amnesty International Australia (2019), there is no evidence that the prospect of death prevents potential perpetrators. Furthermore, some authorities state that the lethal sentence does not decline the number of crimes and is only used as an instrument of vengeance (Amnesty International, 1997). Another reason to cancel the death penalty is the unnecessary brutality of the process. Despite the introduction of less gruesome methods of killing, such as lethal injection, Deshwal (2017) claims that “sterilized and depersonalized methods of execution do not eliminate the brutality of the penalty” (para. 5). Finally, the majority of the population generally believes that lethal sentences are merely unethical and should be abolished (Jouet, 2020). Ultimately, most experts refer to the mentioned-above arguments to illustrate the obligation to cancel death penalties.

Arguments for Death Penalty

On the contrary, some authorities believe that the lethal sentence is necessary and is a useful tool to prevent potential crimes. The first argument supporting this perspective is retribution for the illegal activity. From the philosophical point of view, as mentioned by Immanuel Kant, the murderer should atone by giving up their own life (Flanders, 2013). Another reason for the lethal sentence is the probability that the perpetrator would kill again after prison. According to Radelet and Borg (2000), after the cancellation of most death penalties in America in 1972, about one percent of the criminals killed again. It might seem as an insignificant number, but ultimately the lethal sentence would have prevented it. As previously mentioned, the death penalty policy does not have evidence to deter people from criminal activity. However, public opinion frequently differs from the statistics gathered by experts. According to Seal (2017), throughout the twentieth-century people extensively considered that the death penalty is obligatory to prevent illegal activity. Therefore, some individuals would only feel safe and secure if the government practices the lethal sentence.

Death Penalty Policies around the World

The attitude toward the death penalty varies depending on the regions of the world. In America, the lethal sentence for most crimes was canceled in 1972 by the Supreme Court (Nice, 1992). However, in multiple other countries, the death penalty policies still exist. For instance, while some regions ease restrictions and reduce the number of crimes that are punishable with the lethal sentence, China does the opposite (Lehmann, 2012). Up until the twenty-first century, the Chinese government has purposefully used the death penalty even for non-violent crimes, such as theft or bribes (Lehmann, 2012). Nevertheless, the overall number of countries that have abolished the lethal sentence is continually growing (Hood & Hoyle, 2009). Ultimately, the perspectives regarding the death penalty depend on the region, but more and more governments reject this type of punishment.

Conclusion

Summing up, the opinions about the death penalty vary vastly depending on the countries and the academic experts. Overall, this subject is extremely complicated since the effectiveness of death penalties in terms of criminal deterrence and prevention of potential crimes is almost impossible to prove, and, thus, various perspectives emerge. However, despite the complexity and sensitivity of the topic, most countries have discontinued this policy due to ethical and economical reasons.

References

Amnesty International. (1997). The death penalty: Criminality, justice and human rights. Refworld. Web.

Amnesty International Australia. (2019). Five reasons to abolish death penalty. Web.

Deshwal, S. (n.d.). Death penalty: Contemporary issues. Indian National Bar Association. Web.

Flanders, C. (2013). The case against the case against the death penalty. New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 595-620.

Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2009). Abolishing the death penalty worldwide: The impact of a “new dynamic”. Crime and Justice, 38(1), 1-63.

Jouet, M. (2020). Death penalty abolitionism from the enlightenment to modernity. American Journal of Comparative Law. Web.

Lehmann, E. (2012). The death penalty in a changing socialist state: Reflections on ‘modernity’ from the Mao Era to contemporary China. Honor Theses, 6, 1-86.

Nice, C. D. (1992). The States and the death penalty. The Western Political Quarterly, 45(4), 1037-1048.

Radelet, M. L., & Borg, M. J. (2000). The changing nature of death penalty debates. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 43-61.

Seal, L. (2017). Perceptions of safety, fear and social change in the public’s pro-death penalty discourse in mid twentieth-century Britain. Crime, Histoire & Sociétés / Crime, History & Societies, 21(1), 1-24.

Click Here To Order Now!