Category: Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment For Drug Trafficking: For And Against

Introduction

Drugs are a kind of chemical substance which can change people’s mind and body work such as tobacco, alcohol, heroine, Marijuana and etc (Medlineplus, 2020). Drugs have two sides. Some of the legal drugs are widely used in medicine. However there are a lot of people misuse of drugs. Ex-Health Minister Dzulkefly Ahmad tried to remove the criminal penalty for those who possess drugs and use small quality drugs for personal use. However, drug trafficking is definitely a crime, people who smuggle with 15g above of morphine or heroin or 200g above of cannabis are considered drug trafficking and this will cause the death sentence (Al Jazeera News, 2019). Based on the director of Bukit Aman Narcotics Criminal Investigation Department (NCID), in the year 2019, they found that 95045 of people were involved in drug related offences. 35,706 people are possessing drugs, and 14,497 were involved in drug trafficking, and another 44,842 of people tested had drug addiction (The Star, 2019).

Meanwhile, according the report of death penalty statistics, in February of 2019, there are about 935 out of 1281 of death row in Malaysia are involved in drug trafficking which mean 73% of them are sentenced to death penalty. In the drug trafficking case, there are about 134 cases made by women and out of 121 cases are from foreign women which mean 90% of the women are from foreign countries and only 10% is in Malaysia. Besides, for the men, 51% are Malaysian and 49% are from other countries (Malaysia Kini, 2019). According to the news, on 12 July 2019, police caught 2 Malaysian men who tried to smuggle 1.05kg drug to Busan, Korea in KLIA. Police found that one of the men put the drug inside his shoe and another did not carry any drug but he is the connection of the first suspect. Two of them are investigated under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (The Sun Daily, 2019).

The reasons why this segment is selected for review

We have selected the section on abolishing the death penalty in Malaysia to raise awareness of the people who do not have knowledge about drug trafficking. We have always been using the death penalty to step against the drug dealers or even on the netting of large fish in illegal drug trafficking (Daily Times, 2020). However, these people will not stop immediately at dealing with drug trafficking yet they have to be educated not only to initiate a crackdown on drug traffickers but also to help reduce drug demand. As a result of Chakravathy et.al (2013) stated that most of the 15-24-year-old populations have the needs of drug consumption to avoid the pressure they get daily which will somehow cause them to death. Youths that belong in these populations are not fully educated yet and may easily get affected by certain issues that bothered them while they choose to make money through drug trafficking. So, the awareness campaign has played an important part in providing information about the seriousness of consequences, prevention, young people’s experiences, qualification of drug trafficking according to the law to them. Parents are still able to do prevention on their children by being open at talking to them about drugs and getting them to involve in any family activity which they will not feel neglected (Narconon Freedom Center, 2018). We hope by raising awareness of drug trafficking will improve the knowledge of youths, social and life skills and rejection of things that are involved with drugs. By that time the death penalty has no use but to abolish it.

Next, we want more people to support abolishing the death penalty by providing an opportunity for rehabilitation on drug trafficking of the young victims. The reason is that many of the victims were innocent and used by the drug syndicates to help them with drug trafficking. According to The Star (2019) said that the drug syndicates recruited young Malaysians as tools by supplying them with free vacations or paid courier jobs while the main purpose is to do drug trafficking. Those youths were innocent until the time they get arrested by the police when being body searched. However, there was a Hong Kong prison chaplain who supports and works hard to stop the trade unions from hiring more youths (The Star, 2019). Other than that, we found that there are campaigns called “Support, Don’t Punish” and “Health for Justice. Justice for Health” was created to place harm reduction in the political agenda by building the capacity of the affected communities and their allies to organize, opening up a dialog with policymakers (Vienna NGO Committee On Drugs, 2019). We instead of defining those youths that do drug trafficking as guilty, why don’t we suggest them to a rehabilitation center which provides counseling and education to help them get back on track. They have made one mistake but it should not be ending their life as it does not abolish all the people on drug trafficking yet it will be replaced by new people.

Review of points abolishing death penalty

Runs counter to the universal protection of human rights. It is stated that the death penalty that runs counter to the universal protection of human rights. We agree with this statement. Abolition of death penalty has become a worldwide trend. There are total 106 countries abolished the capital punishment in law for all crime and total 142 countries had abolished the capital pinishment in law and practice at the end of 2018, and these countries’ crime rate have no seen drastic increase (The Star, 2018). According to Amnesty International (2018), death penalty is a extreamely cruel, inhuman, torture punishment that degrading civilization of the society. Besides, capital punishment breaches human rights, especially the right to live from cruel, inhuman, degrading punishment or treatment and the right to life which are protected under Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In our opinion, every single life should be respected and every human should have the chance to repent for his mistake. If the death rows are executed to death penalties, that means the end of their life and they are not even given an opportunity to repent for their mistakes.

Besides, there are a lot of miscarriage of justice cases. The execution of death penalty are not able to reversed, that means it may cause the innocent people to pay the crime which they did not commit. Example, the case of Prabagaran Srivijayan, a 29 years old man was hanged to death in Singapore. He was arrested due to 22.24g of Heroin was found in the car which he borrowed from his friend at the customs at Malaysia-Singapore border (Rashvinjeet, 2017). However, there are some doubtful points that may prove his innocence. For example, there was no point that he fixed the car window in sight of the customs officer if he knew he was carrying drugs. He still protested his complete innocence until the day he died (N Surendran, 2017). If Prabagaran is truly innocent, that means his right to live was deprived.

Not only his cases, there are a lot of people died under this inhuman and torture system. Based on Amnesty International (2019), many of the death row said that they were forced or manipulated to bring drugs into the country. Besides, there are a total 1,281 people sentenced to death in Malaysia in February 2019, 44% of death row are from foreign countries. Most of them face huge difficulties during interpretation. They are also hard to get adequate consular assistance. This kind of situation might cause the miscarirage happen and cause the innocent people died. Therefore, we agree on the statement that death penalty runs counter to the universal protection of human rights and agree the abolition on death penalty.

Has not been effective in reducing the number of drug traffickers. Furthermore, there is a statement of the death penalty has not been effective in reducing the number of drug traffickers. In our point of view, we agree with this statement. First of all, according to the Dangerous Drug Act 1952, anyone found with 200 grams of cannabis, 40 grams of cocaine, and 15 grams of heroin or morphine will be charged with drug trafficking which is a crime that leads to the capital punishment. Drugs have always the harshest penalties. However, there is always a question of doing the death penalty really being effective in reducing drug trafficking. Previously, there is some research and news discussed about this issue. According to Dr. Tun Mahathir, the mandatory death penalty was sometimes too cruel and not an effective deterrent (Hana Naz Harun, 2020).

He also mentioned that in 2018, Malaysian had about 130, 788 drug addicts and in 2019, there is an increase of 23.2 percent compared with 2018 in the same period. Besides, in 2015, Harm Reduction International found that in Iran, although they execute the death penalty toward the people who committed drug crimes than any other country, however, there are still the highest rates of opiate addiction in the world (Saady, 2018). Hence, Girelli concluded that there is no evidence to show that death penalty is an effective deterrent to reduce the drug trade and it is able to estimate that although there are drug laws for the drug trafficking, the drug markets still flourish around the world (Harm Reduction International, 2019).

On the other hand, the number of drug traffickers in Indonesia keeps increasing although there is a death penalty (Gunawan, 2014). It may because of the situation of corruption and bribery in the Indonesian legal system which will cause the rich drug traffickers may not afraid and likely to evade the death penalty as they are able to bribe to avoid it (Gunawan, 2014). Based on the cases above happened in various countries, it can show that the death penalty is not that effective enough to reduce drug trafficking. According to Ruth Dreifuss, the former president of Switzerland and chair of the Global Commission on Drug, “People will continue to use drugs, for a variety of reasons, no matter how strict the laws are,” (Mayberry, 2018).

Furthermore, in our point of view, with all this research and news, we decided to disagree with the statement above. We think that the death penalty was not the solution to fight against drug crimes and it is not the responsibility only for the government to face but also the NGOs and private sector. They have to always collaborate with the government to have some activities to prevent drug crimes. Likewise, the death penalty will not always be the solution for this problem and it may lead to a miscarriage of justice when there is a situation of the defendant was innocents, framed or they used the drug for medical purpose.

Does not deal with the root cause of drug trafficking. In addition, the statement states that it does not deal with the root cause of drug trafficking, we disagree with this statement. As Ex-Health Minister Dzulkefly Ahmad had claimed that drug trafficking is totally a crime (Al Jazeera News, 2019). Therefore, we think that capital punishment should be executed for those who are the main drug trafficker also called as drug kingpins. Moreover, the Ministry of Law and Ministry of Home Affairs of Singapore claim that there is no international agreement that using capital punishment is wrong. Malaysia have the sovereign right to execute capital punishment by rooting out the drug kingpins to reduce and prevent people who are innocent that being recruitment to be another drug traffickers (CNA, 2019). Drug traffickers get rich because they smuggle the drugs to those who are innocent and most of the crime like murder and rape are done by the influence of drugs. Besides, abolish capital punishment does not help to decrease the cases of drug kingpins do the drug trafficking and it will be likely increase because of no heavy punishment (Nair. M, 2018). For example, Venezuela is the first country that abolish capital punishment for all crime since 1963 (Hood and Carolyn, 2002, p.10). However, the crime rate in Venezuela is the highest rate in the world. There are about 84.63 and it is rank 1 in the world. The drug related offence case in Venezuela is about 74.90 and this is considered as a high number (Numbeo, 2020). On the other hand, Taiwan is one of the country that still execute capital punishment (Lewis, M.K, 2017). However, the crime rate is 15.39 as considered low and the number of drug related offence cases is about 21.48 and it is also considered low (Numbeo, 2020).

As we can see, abolish capital punishment is not that effective to deal with the root cause of drug trafficking. In our opinion, the drug kingpins are the main person who sends out those innocent people to do drug trafficking, they attract those innocent people by using incredible prices to do illegal trafficking. Therefore, capital punishment is a must to those who are drug kingpins.

The core business of globally organised criminal organisations

Criminal organisations’ global impact of transnational crime has risen to unprecedented levels, from arms smuggling to human trafficking and environmental crime, fell under the umbrella of transnational crime. We disagree on the above statement to abolish capital punishment as criminal organizations have tons of other illegal business and drugs might be one of their richest income sources. Drug smuggling has been a worldwide issue, but human rights law enforcement does not effectively slow down the drug trade or even the operation of criminal organizations. Ruth Dreifuss, former president of Switzerland and chair of the Global Commission on Drug Policy stated, people will continue to use drugs, for a variety of reasons, regardless of how stringent the laws are (Mayberry, 2018).

It has been found that organized criminal organizations operating in virtual networks appear to have looser links and organize themselves in horizontal structures; studies have also illustrated the growing importance of smaller gangs. Moreover, fewer organizations are committed solely to drug trafficking, while a large number still work in other criminal sectors (UNODC, 2018). Tackling drug trafficking is a long-standing struggle and battle by law enforcement to suppress criminal organizations. Death penalty is one effective suppression and threats to stop the drug dealers to grow this business.

Malaysia’s de facto Law Minister Liew Vui Kheong stated, in the production of other medical items that can be used for therapeutic purposes such as marijuana or morphine used in cancer care (AlJazeera, 2018). There has been a discernible change in drug policy around the world, particularly in relation to the therapeutic use of cannabis. Mayberry (2018) mentioned where drug policies have long been among the most stringent in Asia, exemplified by the bloody ‘war on drugs’ waged by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, Thailand is taking steps to legalize cannabis use for medical and therapeutic purposes. Drugs are not just illegal trades flooded by criminal groups, they are also used for medical research in other countries and non-profit organizations. Yet unless these ‘reforms’ make all illicit drugs available to any potential consumer, such addictive narcotics would have a vast and damaging black market. In fact, by reducing the legal and other pressures that condemn illegal drug use, these ‘reforms’ will also increase the use of illegal drugs and, with this rise, the harms it causes will come (Institute for Behavior and Health, n.d.).

In our point of view, capital punishment is one enforcement of confrontation against criminal organizations as there is no heavier punishment to control illegal transactions and monopolizing the core trade of criminal organizations. The history and seriousness of criminal group smuggling is already a worldwide issue. If only a slight penalty is given for human rights, it will not suppress the prosperity of black market trade and illegal transactions.

Death Penalty: Chris Watts Case

Chris Watts was a father of two little girls ages 4 and 3 he also had a wife who was pregnant with their third child. His wife was a YouTube blogger; everyone saw the Watts as the perfect happy couple. But the happy façade could not be maintained. Chris Watts was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his wife and daughters. Every day as we walk and do our daily routines, we pass at least 36 serial killers per year without even knowing the monsters among us. Should capital punishment be the solution for crimes like the Watts case, instead of life in prison?

The day that Watt’s took the life of his wife and two daughters, the next-door neighbor said that Chris left his house around 5 am; in the video camera, they caught Chris loading his truck three times. Shannan’s friend called the police after she found out that Shannan missed her doctor’s appointment, a police officer went to the Watts home and waited for Chris to arrive. As they searched the house the police officer saw that Chris was very calm and unemotional. Watts had put the body of his two daughters in a boiler and had buried the body of his dead wife just a few feet away. When the interrogation took place, Chris claimed that he strangled his wife because he caught her killing one of his daughters, after talking to his dad he finally confessed that he killed his wife and two daughters. Chris was cheating on his wife with a coworker, in text messages between the two Chris tells his mistress that he is divorcing his wife so that they can live a happy future together (Smith).

In an interview, Chris mentions how he wanted a fresh new start; he no longer wanted to worry about kids or supporting a home. The judge after hearing all the gruesome details sentenced Chris to 5 life sentences without parole. The reason why they gave him the sentencing of 5 lifetimes, and it was for the count of each body and then the last two were other charges. Reasons, why capital punishment would have been the best choice, is because it would reduce taxes and make prisons a much more effective place to take care of the criminals. As the famous quote of George Walker Bush “I support the death penalty because I believe, if administered swiftly and justly, capital punishment is a deterrent against future violence and will save other innocent lives.’ Per day to keep an inmate in jail cost a total of $85 a day per inmate. Immediately that if capital punishment would be applied more often less money would be spent per inmate. Criminals have admitted, in thousands of fully documented cases, that the death penalty was the specific threat which deterred them from committing murder (Pro-Death Penalty, 2014).

As many might say that capital punishment is inhumane the bible says otherwise. Genesis 9:6 says “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” This is part of the larger covenant that God made with Noah after the flood, this reflects the value of life but also gives a reason for that value. As we know, in the New Testament Paul states that “If you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.” Statistical evidence proves that severe and punishment acts as a reliable deterrent to future criminal activities. For instance, between the years 1995 and 2000, there were 71 executions on average every year, which led to 44% in the rate of reported murders. In fact, life sentences cost between $1.2 million to $3.6 million dollars more compared with carrying out the death penalty. The cost of death penalty cases averages $2 million in taxpayer’s money. However, it is significantly lower compared to the costs of housing and caring for prisoners serving life sentences. Prisoners serving life sentences spend 30 and 40 years in prison creating an unnecessary burden on existing resources. Therefore, the economic benefit of the death penalty also forms a strong basis for promoting its acceptance.

The death penalty is the most severe form of punishment enforced for committing a capital offense. Once a jury has convicted the petitioner, they go to the second part of the trail, the punishment phase. Lethal injection is the most common form of use, yet they had other ways of executing like gas chambers, firing squad and the electric chair. Many people’s greatest fear is death; therefore, if they know that death is a possible consequence for their actions, they are less likely to perform such actions. “Capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the court. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence.” (Death Penalty Curricula for High School).

In a study conducted by Isaac Ehrlich in 1973, it was found that for each execution of a criminal seven potential victim’s lives were saved. Also, according to Ehrlich, he claims that if the criminal is executed then the criminal has no opportunity to commit more crimes. In fact, Isaac claims that the death penalty would take less time if they would not allow so many applies for something that the sentencing won’t be changed. The death penalty puts the scales of justice back in balance after they were unfairly tipped towards the criminal.

Immanuel Kant who put forth the idea that “a society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else’s life is simply immoral” (ProCon.org). It is immoral to not properly punish a person who committed such horrendous crimes. Inmates are first given a large dose of an anesthetic, so they do not feel any pain (Bonser); this proves that the process is made as humane as possible so the inmates do not physically suffer. After the anesthetic is administered the person feels no pain; the only part of the process that could be considered painful is when the IV is inserted, but that is done in hospitals daily and no one is calling it unconstitutional.

In the United States, there are more than 2.3 million people being held in both the state and federal prisons. About 443,000 people have not been convicted of anything and are awaiting trial. Another 41,000 are in detention in immigration centers without conviction. On the other hand, 704,000 prisoners are labeled as violent offenders in state prisons. Capital punishment laws create space for potential rehabilitation without dealing with issues of prison over population (Crystal Ayres).

Professor John McAdams stated “If we execute murders and there is no deterrent effect, then we have killed murders. If we fail to execute murderers, which would have deterred others from committing such a crime, then we would have allowed the killing of innocent victims.” Capital punishment is incredibly beneficial for society and will increase the confidence of innocent individuals who may otherwise be afraid to leave their homes. Capital Punishment also warns future criminals and dissuades them from performing capital crimes.

Capital Punishment: For And Against

Introduction to Capital Punishment Debate

Many news articles and statements have been made debating whether the death penalty should still be used. One of the arguments against the death penalty is that it is cruel and unusual punishment. The website for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) explains, ‘It is cruel because it is a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace… It is also unusual because only a random sampling of convicted murderers in the United States receive a sentence of death.’ Scott Rae explains the flaw in this argument when he writes about the use of lethal injection used for euthanasia, ‘If that can be done medically for a terminally ill patient as an act of mercy, then surely the death penalty can be administered in the same way.’ This argument assumes that society has become better and more civilized since the period they call the early days. This view of humanity becoming better and thus not needing capital punishment anymore is well summed up by Gov. Gavin Newsom when he says, “And I think if someone kills, we don’t kill. We’re better than that.” This argument relies heavily on people feeling like they are above killing others and claims that society has moved past capital punishment as a whole. Although this may seem to be a good argument at first, it relies on humanity being inherently good and does not take into account the sin nature of humanity.

A second reason put forward against capital punishment is that people have the right to live. The BBC website states when talking of this subject, ‘Everyone has an inalienable human right to life, even those who commit murder; sentencing a person to death and executing them violates that right.’ This again looks like an acceptable argument at first but falls apart as soon as a person realizes that the only right humanity has without God is death.

Another common argument from those who want to see capital punishment banished is that is does not reduce crime. They claim that putting people to death for killing others is not going to cause the criminals to rethink before they do kill someone. In the words of Max Ehrenfreund, ‘Despite extensive research on the question, criminologists have been unable to assemble a strong case that capital punishment deters crime.’ On the other hand, Wayne Grudem writes,

Similarly, death penalty opponents Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago and Adrian Vermeule of Harvard University write, “Capital punishment may well save lives.” They add, “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.

The experts clearly do not agree on the effectiveness of the death penalty in reducing murders. Regardless of whether it deters people or not, there is one thing the death penalty does really well. In the words of Donald Trump, ‘They say it’s not a deterrent. Well, you know what, maybe it’s not a deterrent but these two [men convicted of killing two police officers in Hattiesburg, MS] will not do any more killing.’ Although there is evidence for the death penalty reducing the amount of murders, even if it does not do that it removes repeat offenders. Gordon Clark makes this same observation when he writes, ‘The liberal arguments are superficial. One is that capital punishment does not deter. Obviously it deters the executed criminal, If it does not deter others, the reply is that the law may not deter, but its enforcement will.’ This is not a very good reason for capital punishment to be enacted but it certainly is not a good reason for people to abolish it.

Economic Considerations and Resource Utilization

Another argument both sides of the debate uses is the use of resources. The ACLU website states, ‘Limited funds that could be used to prevent and solve crime (and provide education and jobs) are spent on capital punishment.’ This argument makes some sense when you look at the numbers that the BBC records on their website, ‘New York spent about $170 million over 9 years and had no executions.’ This is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on a program that appears not to be used at all. The expense is mostly coming from the appeal process that takes place to decide if a person is actually going to be given the death sentence. Rae points out,

But that expense needs to be compared with the cost of adequately caring for prison inmates for the rest of their lives. The cost of housing, feeding, security, and health care, particularly as the inmate ages and requires more extensive care, easily exceeds the legal fees and court costs borne by taxpayers during the appeals process.

Although capital punishment costs less in the long run, it is certainly not a good way to decide if it is ethically okay or not. In the same BBC web page that argues that the death penalty costs too much is also says, ‘Justice cannot be thought of in financial terms.’ Although the cost of capital punishment is often brought up, it cannot be the deciding factor.

Biblical Perspectives on Capital Punishment

Probably the single best reason given by those looking to abolish the death penalty outside of what the Bible says is that an innocent person could be killed. This is a real concern as the judicial system is run by sinful humans who make mistakes. Clark points out the first flaw in this argument, ‘Do you prefer 10,000 murders to save on innocent man rather than one tragedy to save 5000 lives?’ Although this does put the issue into perspective, it still could be argued that killing someone innocent is not worth the risk. Clark addresses this in his next sentence, saying, ‘But of course this type of argument is superficial and irrelevant. God gave the right of capital punishment to human governments.’ All of these arguments do not really matter if the Bible says that capital punishment is supposed to be taking place.

The Bible’s biggest passage used to argue that capital punishment is commanded in Genesis 9:5-6 where it says, ‘And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” This verse clearly commands that if someone kills another man, he is to be killed by men. Walter Kaiser, Jr. explains this verse in more detail when he says, ‘The context makes plain that the verb יִשָּׁפֵ֑ךְ, ‘he shall shed,’ must be a command. Verse 5 states that God demands it: ‘I (= God) will demand and account for the life of his fellow man.” God clearly commands that if someone murders someone else it is the responsibly of other humans to put that person to death.

This command by God makes perfect sense when the value of human life is taken into consideration. Verse 6 states that human beings are made in the image of God. Grudem explains the implications of this when he writes, ‘To be in God’s image means that human beings are more like God than anything else on the earth, and it also means that they are God’s representatives in this world (for they are like him and thus can best represent him).’ As a result of this special gift from God, the death of a human is of great importance to him. This means that if a human takes the life of another human it is a big deal to God and must come with the ultimate punishment. The reason for this is explained by Grudem when he writes, ‘The murder of another human being is therefore a kind of attack against God himself, for it is an attack against his representative on the earth, an attack against the “image” of himself that he has left on the earth.’ This clearly shows that God has every reason for his command for capital punishment.

New Testament Considerations and Jesus’ Teachings

Although this argument for capital punishment appears very clear there are some people who try arguing that this command changed in the New Testament. A common passage used in this argument is Matthew 5:38-39 where Jesus says, ‘ You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.’ From this passage people propose that Jesus is saying it is wrong to retaliate against someone and that a person needs to forgive and thus we should not seek capital punishment. As David Gushee and Glen Stassen write, ‘Then Jesus named the sinful pattern as violent or revengeful retaliation (Mt 5:39). Such revengeful retaliating leads to more killing.’ This statement is quite an accusation when considering what the text actually says. In order to decide if this is a valid argument a closer look at the text is required.

In Matthew 5:38-39 Jesus was clearly trying to teach that retaliation is wrong. He says that instead of fighting back Jesus commands that a person is to not resist. This command could mean that believers are not to seek the death penalty when someone murders someone else. The problem with this argument is summed up by Warren Wiersbe when he writes, ‘Jesus replaced a law with an attitude: be willing to suffer loss yourself rather than cause another to suffer. Of course, He applied this to personal insults, not to groups or nations.’ After a closer look at the text, it is clear that Jesus was talking to individuals, not a government. As a result, it becomes clear that this passage is not evidence to abolish the death penalty. Gushee and Stassen are correct to say that it is wrong for a single person to go retaliate and execute someone on their own but it is clearly wrong to apply this passage to all death sentences.

Another Bible passage that is used in the case against capital punishment is John 8:2-11. In this passage, a woman who was caught in adultery is brought before Jesus by the scribes and Pharisees. They brought her before him to see what he would do to try and bring a charge against him. They asked Jesus what they should do. Jesus the says that the person without sin should throw the first stone. After they all leave Jesus tells the woman that she can go and chargers her not to sin anymore. People will argue that since Jesus did not execute this woman he is saying that the death penalty is no longer an acceptable way to punishing people. This appears to make a lot of sense initially but again falls apart after further study for the following two reasons.

The first reason is that the account of the woman caught in adultery is not found in the original manuscripts. As it is said in the Life Application Commentary when referring to this story, ‘It does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifth century, and no Greek church father comments on the passage prior to the twelfth century. Even then, the comments state that the accurate manuscripts do not contain this story.’ The story of the woman caught in adultery is of questionable origin to begin with. It is possible that it was written with one of the gospels and then inserted into John at a later date. For the next argument the assumption will be made that this is truly part of Scripture but that is still not something that can be verified.

Second, this example is not a case of the death penalty due to murder but to adultery. It is true that the law given to Moses required the death of anyone caught in adultery. That said, the command in Genesis 9 was given long before the command to execute those caught in adultery. As Grudem states, ‘ First, even if this text is used to argue against the death penalty for adultery, it is not a story about a murderer, so it cannot be applied to the use of the death penalty for murder, which was established in God’s covenant with Noah long before the covenant with Moses.’ On top of this, the very law that the Pharisees were trying to use to trap Jesus does not line up with what they have presented. Leviticus 20:10 says, ‘If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.’ The fact that only the woman was brought before Jesus in the first place also makes this scenario a very week one to base an argument against capital punishment on.

Many people have used Jesus arrest in Matthew as a reason against capital punishment as well. This idea comes from Jesus rebuking Peter after he tried to defend Jesus from being taken by those who wanted to kill him. In Matthew 26:52 it says, ”Put your sword back in its place,’ Jesus said to him, ‘for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” It does not say that in every situation it is wrong to use a weapon. All Jesus says is that Peter is not to try and save him in this particular scenario. Grudem points out how ridiculous this claim is when he writes, ‘Jesus was not saying that no soldiers or police officers should ever have weapons; rather, he was telling Peter not to attempt to resist those who were arresting Jesus and would lead him to crucifixion.’ Jesus knew what was going to happen and it makes sense that he would tell Peter not to try and stop it as Jesus knew he needed to go to the cross.

Cain in Genesis 4:10-16 is another example used to argue that God does not want people to see the death penalty upheld. Gushee and Stassen write, ‘They usually overlook the examples of murderers whom God did not want killed, like Cain, who murdered his own brother out of premeditated jealousy.’ It is true that God did not put Cain to death but before this is taken as a reason to abolish capital punishment some more research is required. Kaiser explains this situation a little further, ‘The key to answering the question of what God’s purpose was in protecting Cain is to note the importance and significance of family law. The family was barred from acting as prosecutor, jury, witness, judge, and executor.’ Since it has been so little time since the creation of the world it makes sense that God did not make someone who is closely related to Cain execute him. On the other hand, this does not answer why God did not execute him personally. In the end, there is no way to know exactly why God did not execute Cain. God can do what he wants but that does not mean that every time he does something the laws and commands he has laid out for humans change. Grudem points out more scenarios where God did put someone to death for what they had done, ‘We see this with the fire that fell from heaven on Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24–29); the flood (Genesis 6–9); and the sudden deaths of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1–2); Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num. 16:31–33); and Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:7).’ God can do what he wants to whomever he wants. He is not bound by the rules that he has laid out for mankind.

1 Peter 2:13-14 is another example of a passage that supports the death penalty. Peter is commanding believers to submit to their authorities. David Walls and Max Anders write the following about this statement, ‘The apostle Peter wanted believers to submit willingly, but his words are not presented as an option, but as a command.’ This command is clearly present but does not initially appear to really be in reference to the death penalty. Grudem explains the connection,

The expression translated “to punish” in verse 14 (eis ekdikēsis, literally “for the punishment”) includes the same word that Paul uses for “vengeance” that belongs to God (Rom. 12:19). Paul also uses a word from the same root to say that the civil government is “an avenger [Greek, ekdikos] who carries out God’s wrath” (Rom. 13:4).

God has given the ruling authorities the command to act as a means for God’s punishment on earth. Since God commands in Genesis 9 that a man must die for murdering someone, the ruling group is clearly given the command by God to do so.

Conclusion: Weighing the Arguments

The death penalty is a highly debated topic among both the secular and Christian world. Both have some good arguments to support their position. These points are sometimes difficult to dispute because they can be based on people’s feelings or opinions. In the end, each person has to decide for themselves what they believe regarding this issue. This has been a brief examination of some of the arguments from the Bible and from other people in society regarding this debate. Overall, the evidence does appear to support the use of capital punishment when someone murders someone else.

Discursive Essay on Whether Capital Punishment Is a Justified Response to the Most Heinous of Crimes

Capital punishment or the death penalty is the institutionalized practice that seeks to deliberately cause the death of someone known to or accused of the most heinous crimes. The idea of a heinous crime is subjective to what certain people believe, crimes that are often described this way and result in capital punishment are: murder with special circumstances, treason, perjury that results in the execution of an innocent person and assault with a weapon while serving life. Historically there is knowledge of capital punishment all the way back to the ancient Greeks, but the main focus of modern philosophical thinkers that look into capital punishment is around the reform of the penal system. With the emergence of an international human rights regime, the question surrounding the morality of capital punishment was taken into consideration. Like most philosophical questions that come down to question morality, there are two main ideologies that are used to either justify the action or not, these are utilitarianism or consequentialism. Both of these philosophical ideologies are used to look at the effect of capital punishment, especially around whether or not it affects crime rates, or is a deterrent to those thinking about committing such crimes. Classic utilitarianism is used to justify the action of capital punishment, especially when defending it as a deterrent to crime, suggesting that it is the best thing for the greater good. When it comes to consequentialism the main focus is on whether the action that the person took is justified based on the judgment of the consequences. Another concept that will be looked at surrounding the question of the morality of the death penalty is the lex talionis often known as the law of retaliation, which is used to suggest that the punishment someone receives for a crime should be the same or similar to the crime they committed. Lastly, the concept of innocent people and racial discrimination will be looked at in light of the question can I system based on injustice truly ever be justified.

When looking at the lex talionis there is an important philosophical scholar that explains the concept and tries to justify its use for capital punishment, this scholar is Immanuel Kant. Kant focuses on this in his book The Metaphysical Elements of Justice where Kant suggests that judicial punishment should only be inflicted on the perpetrator on the ground in which they committed the crime. This implies that after the person is found to be guilty of the crime their punishment should be that they are treated as they treated their victim. After this Kant explicitly uses these principles to apply them to real situations involving the most heinous of crimes. For example, Kant states that if a person commits murder, they themselves must die and any other outcome for the person who committed the murder is unjust and unsatisfying. For Kant, there is no similarity of the punishment of death to staying alive even under the most horrible conditions. The main point to Kant`s defense of the death penalty is what is known as the principle of equality where the proper punishment amounts to the crime. The lex talionis is often described as being very similar in principle to the eye for an eye argument. The eye for an eye argument suggests that offenders must suffer the exact pain that the victim was caused. Despite the fact that the lex talionis and Kant`s philosophical ideas work in principle, there are flaws to how they actually work in practice. Furthermore, this philosophical ideology contradicts Kant`s other philosophical points made about the world and its ethics. It is known that any literalism around the lex talionis cannot take place in practice as when looking at other crimes, not just murder these things cannot logically happen. An example is when talking about a crime such as rape it would suggest that the appropriate punishment is for the rapist to be raped themselves and when coming to the crime of robbery the robber must be robbed. Therefore, to carry this idea out in practice the state or government would have to hire professional murderers, rapists, and thieves that are exempt from the lex talionis rules. As C. L. Ten says it would appear that the single murder is one of the few cases in which the lex talionis can be applied literally. And even then, this can be disputed as if the crime and punishment had to be the same, would this not suggest that the murderer should be killed the exact way they killed their victim not through authorized government methods, there is surely a difference between someone being tortured to death and someone being put down with the lethal injection. When it comes to Kant being a supporter of this particular philosophical ideology can be confusing when you focus on his other principles, mainly the principle of humanity. In summary, the principle of humanity is claiming that it is morally obligatory to treat other people with respect and never like an object, there should be respect for anything that can be autonomous and use reason. Because of this, it is simple and clear to see that the lex talionis and the principle of humanity conflict ideas and cannot work together. Lex implies that criminals are a means of obtaining justice, does this not conflict the idea of treating them with respect and dignity? With the nature of Lex, it would imply that there would be a constant chain of crimes and punishments because those killing a killer would then become killers themselves hence, they would need to meet the same punishment as well, if this is the case then crime rates do not lower because it becomes a cycle, so the defense that capital punishment is a deterrent is no longer valid in this scenario. Due to the main flaws in the argument, it is clear that although in theory, this works as a source for justice, in practice it cannot be carried out. The idea of revenge for what has happened to yourself or someone else is a common one for people but does not justify the use of capital punishment. If everything we did was justified by the ideas around revenge the cycle would be continuous and harmful. This argument, therefore, does not justify capital punishment for any crime whether it be the most heinous or not.

Another philosophical theory that is used within the debate around capital punishment is Utilitarianism, which focuses on doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. When it comes to discussions of capital punishment, the utilitarian approach focuses on the consequences or results of death being the penalty of heinous crimes. The difference with utilitarianism, compared to lex talionis ideology, is that the punishment of death is only justified if the amount of punishment promotes the most happiness or pleasure. The idea behind the justification of capital punishment is that the pain and suffering that is caused by the use of capital punishment would be outweighed by its beneficial effects. The beneficial effects that could happen is crime prevention through deterrence and removing said criminal up for capital punishment from society to prevent them from ever being able to continue. Another fact that has to be taken into account is whether the total effects of capital punishment exceed the benefits of putting the criminal through the penal system. This makes the utilitarianism argument around the justification of capital punishment comparative of the good and bad effects of capital punishment, although in some cases what is a good or bad effect can be subjective. The classic utilitarianism approach around punishment is by Jeremy Bentham who in his work An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation addresses the question of what an appropriate amount of punishment for criminal behaviors is or in other words the proportion between offenses and punishment. Beginning with fundamental features of a utilitarian approach, with issues such as the general object of any present law should be in the interest of the total happiness of the community. Although it is thought that all punishment is inherently evil and using the principle of utility punishment should only be used when it excludes a greater evil. A major part of utilitarianism is justified by the means of Bentham, who within his writings about punishment continuously suggests that it is important to keep thinking about the ends of punishment and what they mean. To Bentham, there are three major ends to capital punishment which are: promoting total happiness; disablement of the offender and deterrence of crime. Of the three ends given by Bentham, deterrence is the most important and because of this any amount of punishment is justified, as the main goal of punishments like the death penalty is to be a preventative for the offender and a deterrent to others. Despite this Bentham is known in his work to praise On Crimes and Punishments by Cesare Beccaria, who uses a utilitarian approach to call for penal reform rather than capital punishment and actively suggests it should be banned. The banning is called for because Beccaria sees that it is ineffective when it comes to reducing crime rates or deterring people away from a life of crime. Beccaria, like Bentham, believes that the most important reason for punishment is deterrence and that how effective that is should help to decide the amount of punishment that should be received for certain crimes. Beccaria then continues suggesting that capital punishment is not useful or necessary and that long prison sentences actually do more for deterring people away from crime than the idea of capital punishment does. Utilitarianism ideology referring to this issue makes sense as it suggests that capital punishment should only be used when the benefits outweigh the negative consequences, but as Beccaria sees it, it is not acting as a preventative for anyone but the criminal on death row. It could be argued again that this theory works in theory and not in practice, however, it is more effective in justifying the use of capital punishment for heinous crimes as it suggests that it should only be used when it would actually serve actual justice rather than getting revenge on a more personal level.

A looming problem around capital punishment and the justice system, in general, is around discrimination whether that be because of race or class, a system made to serve justice is not completely just within itself. Many sources of data show that procedures within the American justice system disproportionately get capital punishment convictions for those who are poor, uneducated, or African American. The institution around capital punishment is said to be imperfect and arbitrary as it discriminates against those who low economic standing and African Americans. A person going the road from freedom to the electric chair is often said about those who have a warping factor of poverty or race. The decisions made the justice system go hand in hand with racial bias and discrimination which makes opponents of the death penalty see factors of both race and poverty as a factor that increases someone’s likelihood to get convicted on a capital case even if innocent. This puts into question whether the death penalty is for justice or just looking for someone to blame and someone else to suffer. The idea that discrimination runs through a system like this makes the idea of capital punishment more difficult to justify, coming to terms with the likelihood that in America if you are a poor or African American it is more likely you will meet the electric chair even if innocent. Marx and Marxism look further into society and the rates of poverty as a way to abstain from capital punishment this is because it is inapplicable to conditions going on within society. Sociality is criminally rooted, and this is more than likely due to the major inequalities from the wealthy to the poor. With this bias within the justice system that carries out capital punishment, it can not be justified completely. Discrimination corrupts the system in which it works out and a system bound with discrimination for anyone cannot be morally justified until those problems are fixed. Continuing with the discrimination against the poor and African Americans allows for the unjustified killing of people which defeats the point of capital punishment.

When looking at arguments against the reintroduction of capital punishment within the United Kingdom the main reason was to protect the innocent. Although when looking at scholars such as John Stuart Mill there`s an idea presented of a justice system with no flaws at can deduct who is actually guilty and who is not. Though this seems very unlikely in present or upcoming times, especially as from 1973 130 people on death row have been found to be completely innocent in the USA. Innocent people being found guilty of crimes they did not commit is more likely than thought due to human error as witnesses, judges and prosecutors are all humans and can make mistakes. Even if not innocent there are many people who are executed through capital punishment who are what is called criminally insane either at the time of the crime or at the time of execution. It is argued that although those who are classified as insane should be locked up it is inhumane to execute them and therefore a reintroduction of capital punishment puts those who are insane at risk of execution. Being locked up or confined would be for their own safety and society whereas killing them would be an unjust action as you can only truly be guilty of a crime if you are sane at the time. Along with all the innocent lives that have been taken away through capital punishment there is the looming thought that many families of those who were victims of those who were executed actually do not see the death penalty as justice for them and a lot even campaign against the killer of their loved one being executed. Is the death penalty necessary even if the family of the victim do not want it? There are many factors that can make the death penalty unjust for many people and this makes it difficult to know whole truly deserves it if anyone. Surely the rate of how many innocent people are killed or sentenced to capital punishment sheds doubt on whether any of the executions that have happened are completely just.

In conclusion, due to the many flaws that can be found in the justice system as a whole as well as the arguments that try and justify the use of capital punishment, there is doubt about how just it really is. Looking at the evidence it only seems right that the use of capital punishment is abandoned due to its unjust nature. When looking at it philosophically there are flaws in each argument and a lot of them only would work in theory but not in the actual practice of capital punishment. For example, when looking over Immanuel Kanta`s thoughts around punishment and the death penalty he seemed to conflict his own previous ideas while also suggesting something that would not work in reality. Kant`s ideas while good in theory would cause a continuous cycle of punishment. Then with Bentham and utilitarianism, it is difficult to pinpoint whether or not it can actually be justified, with the main reason why it would be acceptable actually not happening in reality. For example, Bentham suggested that the main reason would be to deter people away from crime however there is no evidence to back this up and actually, there is more evidence that imprisonment with long sentences is the way to go. Because the evidence that is suggesting that capital punishment is justified is weak and flawed there is no choice but to suggest that it is actually unjustified. No person should get to be judged, jury, and executioner of their peer, humans are full of flaws this works both ways through flaws that turn people into criminals and flaws that put innocent people in the electric chair. Because we have a penal system it doesn`t seem like capital punishment is really needed and its actually more just to have a person either be reformed from the behavior that put them there or to live and reflect on what they have done. Capital punishment is not justified in a lot of cases even for the most heinous of crimes.

Compare and Contrast Essay: Arguments For and Against Capital Punishment

Capital punishment also known as the death penalty in the United States has been around since the founding of the first thirteen colonies but it has been proven to be around since late 1700 BC when it was seen as a theory of an “eye for an eye”. Originally, death was supposed to be slow and painful and was delivered by; stoning, crushing, hanging, and being burned but as of now lethal injection, electrocution, and gas chambers are more common. Over time, capital punishment has been controversial and has slowly become legal in only 28 states. Currently, it is defined as “capital punishment, also called the death penalty, execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense.” (Hood, 2020). It has been the sternest form of corporal punishment since it entails taking away the lives of convicted offenders by law enforcement. It is an act that can only be ordered by the state. There is a number of arguments put forth both for and against the aspect of the death penalty. Capital Punishment is ethically wrong and does more harm than good because it runs the risk of wrongful execution, brutalizes society by failing to stop more crimes from being committed (deterrence) and lastly, goes against the value of human life.

Wrongful executions are common in U.S. history. It wasn’t until 1986 that DNA testing was first used for a criminal investigation but even after, there still is a number of people sitting on death row awaiting capital punishment. The ethical study of deontology formally goes against the killing of people especially those who are innocent.. Using the normative ethical theory, the morality of an action must be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a set of rules, instead of based on the consequences of the action. Therefore, while many argue that executing one person reduces the risk of the crime being committed again, in contrast, “many deontologists would say that even if death would save hundreds of other lives, it is never morally acceptable to kill an innocent person. Furthermore, some deontologists believe that some right actions should be taken not because of their outcome but because they help set a precedent and a moral norm.” (Mohn, 2020). 18th-century philosopher, Emmanuel Kant was the first to define deontological principles. Kant believed that if one has goodwill they have good intentions while respecting a moral law that deserves to be a universal law in this case the moral law, is do not kill. Deontologists view argues that capital punishment is morally wrong. The possibility of executing innocent individuals makes the issue of the death penalty seem very wrong as most people who have received capital punishment have been proven innocent after more investigation has been done.

As mentioned before the procedure of capital punishment is said to reduce criminal activity, it is shown that capital punishment fails to deter which results in the brutalization of society. States that withhold the Death penalty show an increase in the murder rate. “In the USA, more murders take place in states where capital punishment is allowed. In 2010, the murder rate in states where the death penalty has been abolished was 4.01 percent per 100,000 people. In states where the death penalty is used, the figure was 5.00 percent.” (BBC, 2014). The concept of deterrence is morally flawed. If someone who was plotting to commit a criminal offense knew that he could possibly face death, they would reconsider committing the crime but this is not the case. John Stuart Mill’s idea of utilitarianism claims actions are right if they tend to promote happiness, and wrong if they tend to produce unhappiness. If a person believes they will gain happiness from committing a crime, they will do so. While Mill has rejected an objection to his theory saying that it permits crimes (Mill’s harm principle) he gives no concrete case that it does not. His principle can be criticized because of its vagueness, the definition of “harm” may differ for each person. For example, if I do not clean my room and that somehow harms my mother, I should feel compelled to clean my room. The vagueness of his principle can interfere with the liberties that Mill wanted. When it comes to committing crimes, punishing someone who commits a crime through violence brutalizes society. The practice of the death penalty shows some negative attributes of society as it emphasizes killing as the right way to act in some situations. Doctor Gary. W Potter writes, “Social scientists refer to this as the ‘brutalization effect.’ Execution stimulates homicides in three ways: (1) executions desensitize the public to the immorality of killing, increasing the probability that some people will be motivated to kill; (2) the state legitimizes the notion that vengeance for past misdeeds is acceptable; and (3) executions also have an imitation effect, where people actually follow the example set by the state, after all, people feel if the government can kill its enemies, so can they” (Potter, 1999). Potter then continues to write how study after study has proven that capital punishment hurts more than helps society. The brutalization of society due to capital punishment also goes against Thomas Aquians’s natural law theory. According to the natural law theory, we must live in a good community. We must avoid offense in order to keep the good in society. As it has been proven, capital punishment does not create order in society and help decrease the crime rate but it does the opposite causing corruption. Statistics have shown that capital punishment is not a great solution as the states that execute the death penalty have not shown any significant signs of reduction of violent criminal activities hence it is more ethical to apply other forms of sentencing other than execution as it will eliminate killing which is morally wrong.

Natural law theory also emphasized the importance of the value of human life which capital punishment goes against. There is a chain reaction between the value of human life and capital punishment. It first begins with one seeing their life is valuable, then seeing the value in someone else’s life, reason then leads us to see that killing violates natural law. Aquanis’s had answers to those who question why people violate the natural law of not killing which was ignorance and emotions. Along with Aquinas, John Locke also emphasized the values of human life and their rights. Locke founded fundamental natural rights; life, liberty, health, and property. Locke states, “All mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions.”(Munro, 2020). Using Locke’s theories, everyone has the inalienable right to life, even those who committed a criminal offense, sentencing a person to execution violates their natural born right. A common counter-argument to the right to life is that once someone commits a crime such as murder, they are automatically giving up their rights because they know the consequences that come with a criminal offense. Although Aquinas’s natural law theory values human life and a good society, he also believed that “… if any man is dangerous to the community and is subverting it by some sin, the treatment to be commended is his execution in order to preserve the common good… Therefore to kill a man who retains his natural worthiness is intrinsically evil, although it may be justifiable to kill a sinner just as it is to kill a beast, for, as Aristotle points out, an evil man is worse than a beast and more harmful.” (BBC, 2014). In certain situations, the killing of somebody can inevitably be considered an act of good. The killing of someone was done in order to repair the violation of justice done by the person that was killed. Within current events, we can see many people who are “pro-life” (against abortion) but support the death penalty. They value the life of an unborn child but not the life of a convict because the killing of the person receiving the death penalty is good for society unlike the death of an unborn child because the fetus did no wrong. We can commonly see this contradiction of beliefs within certain religions.

The use of capital punishment is a morally incorrect form of criminal justice because it runs into a number of ethical issues and has been proven to be an ineffective method of societal restoration. While the counter-argument is that it is acceptable to kill somebody for a “good cause”, there is no other evidence that it deters people from committing crimes but it in fact has the opposite effect on crime rates. Although advances in evidence have made it easier to convict people of criminal offenses about 4% of people that are sitting on death row awaiting their capital punishment are wrongfully convicted and executed. Along with wrongful execution, the death penalty also brutalizes society by desensitizing people from killing others and shows the imitation effect. Lastly, capital punishment goes against the value of human life. Everyone is born with the natural right to life and can not have that right taken away from them. Those who support it argue the death penalty can restore society and control the amount of evil within it while those that oppose it argue it is immoral to put death upon any person and that justice should be shown to the offenders through other sentences other than taking the life away from the offender.

Essay on Opposing Views of Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is a very controversial topic for Christians. It seems strange to punish people who kill others by killing them to show that killing people is wrong. Nonetheless, the use of capital punishment is biblical. In certain rare circumstances, the state has the authority to take a life.

God instituted capital punishment in Genesis 9:6 which states, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.” Capital punishment was a powerful enforcer of the law in Old Testament Israel. The Old Testament Law commanded execution for several offenses including murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), striking or cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15,17), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), incest (Leviticus 18:6-18), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), rape (Deuteronomy 22:24), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), witchcraft (Exodus 22:18), breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14), blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), and many other transgressions. The use of the death penalty in the Old Testament shows how precious human life is to God. Murder was a serious offense to God and man and must be answered with the death of the murderer.

In Romans 13:1-7, the Apostle Paul recognized the authority of the government to use capital punishment when appropriate. Verse 4 states, “For he [the authority] does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” Note that Romans 13 says that the state has the authority, not the obligation, to execute. The state is not required to use the death penalty in all the circumstances listed in the Old Testament Law. Oftentimes God showed mercy when the death penalty was due. Although David committed adultery and murder, God did not demand that his life be taken (2 Samuel 11:1-5, 14-17; 12:13). Jesus also showed mercy when capital punishment was due (John 8:1-11). In Ezekiel 33:11, we see that God has “no pleasure in the death of the wicked.” Similarly, Christians should only use execution as a last resort and should never rejoice when the death penalty is employed. Since the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), every sin we commit should end in the death penalty. But God demonstrates His love for us by not condemning us and sending His son Jesus to die for us. (Romans 5:8).

Clearly, the Old Testament Law supports capital punishment. However, Christians who oppose the death penalty believe that the developments of the New Testament replace the Old Testament Law. Many of Jesus’ actions and teachings support mercy and humility which might suggest that Christians should not use capital punishment. However, although Jesus Himself never uses violence, He never denies the state’s authority to exact capital punishment. Furthermore, the Old Testament Law ordered the death penalty for many crimes which are considered minor today. Christians should not exert the death penalty in all the cases cited in the Old Testament Law because some cases are only appropriate within the context of the Old Testament.

To conclude, the death penalty is a biblical punishment, but it should only be used in rare circumstances. The state isn’t required to use capital punishment, though they do have the authority to. The death penalty should not be used in all the cases specified in the Old Testament Law—some are only appropriate within the context of the Old Testament. Regardless of whether you choose to support or oppose capital punishment, your actions must be motivated by Christlike values and not vengeance or hate. Capital punishment must be carried out justly and must not target the innocent.

Capital Punishment in Films: ‘The Green Mile’: Critical Essay

The Green Mile is an American fantasy, mystery, and crime drama adapted from Stephen King’s novel [1996] and directed by Frank Darabont in 1999. The stars of the film are Tom Hanks, which appears as Paul Edgecomb, the commanding officer of the death row cellblock at Cold Mountain Penitentiary in Louisiana, and Michael Clarke Duncan in his breakout of a supporting role as John Coffey, an innocent and physical strong looking black man, placed on a death row for a crime he never committed. The film is composed between reality and John Coffey’s superpowers, and it also crosses highly meaningful themes, for example, racism, punishment of an innocent, death, and faith. The film was nominated for four academy awards[footnoteRef:1] and had other important awards and nominees, likewise a high IMDb rating (8.6)[footnoteRef:2]. This movie would appeal to young mature adults due to its cruelty, violence, and tearful scenes. [1: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120689/awards?ref_=tt_ql_op_1] [2: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120689/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt]

The story of the film is told by used to be commanding officer Paul Edgecombe (Thom Hanks) and he flashes back to the 1930s at the Louisiana State Prison where he was responsible for his colleagues and took care of condemned men who were sentenced to die in the electric chair. Although he had seen many cons, he met a completely different con named John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan) – a massive black man who was convicted of killing young twins. As he appears to the E block, he makes an impression of a strong and huge man with poor linguistics who could kill anyone, however, his politeness, behavior, and superpower to mainly heal injured or ill people, portrays him as completely opposite to that person. That is how from the very start Paul starts wondering if Paul Coffey is really guilty and responsible for murdering the sisters. The structure of this movie is simple to follow because it goes chronological from the beginning till the end. Firstly it shows the present, then the protagonist starts telling the story that happened years ago.

The movie mostly uses metaphors and symbolism that are related to faith, but not only because through several scenes appears the figures of Christ. More importantly, one of the main characters, John Coffey, can be understood as a sign and may be represented as the figure of Jesus, as it was stated by Paul Edgecomb “I just can’t see God putting a gift like that in the hands of a man who would kill a child.“[footnoteRef:3] Coffey appears from nowhere, and at the begging of the movie, he mentioned that he is afraid of the darkness. No surprise that in the healing process, the lights in the jail start flickering and after that, he realizes diseases as a black swarm of flies from his mouth. Furthermore, a little mouse whose name is Mr Jingles, is considered by many as a form of the angel, who was sent for a con to prepare him for his death. In contrast to these characters, an evil part devolves into the guard named Percy Wetmore who enjoys watching prisoners dying and suffering, and murderer Will Bill. Thus, symbolism requires a deeper understanding and remarking for the audience. [3: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/green_mile/quotes/]

The Green Mile is set in a Mountain Penitentiary in Louisiana, E block, in the 1930s. It is believable that it is summer, because of the characters’ vivid sweat on their faces which is clearly visible as the camera shows them from very close. The characters’ costumes give the accuracy of what year it is, it is understood from prison guards’ uniforms, and cons’ simple clothing, and even from women’s hairstyles. The lighting makes the movie look realistic, and it dramatically changes when Coffey by his powers showed a guard who is really guilty of murdering two girls – the scene becomes darker. Thus, the mise-en-scene plays a great part in creating a movie atmosphere, and in this case, it sure did its job.

The context of the movie obviously revolves around the theme of death and faith. Death appears as a punishment for every prisoner and every one of them has to walk “The Green Mile” and wait for the execution on the electric chair. Moreover, John Coffey’s character portrays a real example of racism, because he has dark skin, and it conveys people’s mindset at that time; it shows that he is already guilty and inherently disadvantaged because of his skin. Thus, the innocent person is punished for this horrible ending even though he has a gift from God. The context of this movie can be pagalvotas bet kuriame gyvenimo laikotarpi

The Green Mile may leave a remarkable impression on almost every viewer. With deeper symbolism, it touches very thoughtful themes such as racism, faith, and death, and overall it would be hard to deny the thought that it still is and was considered at some point in every part of the world in every decade. Even though this movie is between reality and fantasy, it can leave mature adults wondering about their faith and morality. On this wise, Frank Darabont completed every aspect and directed this movie as a treasure for the audience.

References:

1. https://books.google.lt/books?id=KNA7gfXJw9sC&pg=PT40&lpg=PT40&dq=the+green+mile+mr+jingles+angel&source=bl&ots=85G7qq4ezf&sig=ACfU3U15KYjNx0k3mHolAcBAK6Rfryab6A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRgIbu7rPiAhVKl4sKHUhBDOU4ChDoATAJegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=the%20green%20mile%20mr%20jingles%20angel&f=false

Arguments For and Against Capital Punishment: Research Paper

The death penalty is taking a human lifestyles in return for some bad conduct submitted by using an individual that has been esteemed to be so antagonistic to society it warrants the closure of the informer’s existence. The death penalty can’t be a straightforward issue which can without a whole lot of stretch be decided in excessive contrast non-debatable terms. There are continuously specific sides to an problem, yet the death penalty is by means of all debts a multi-sided subject, that is match for being surveyed and investigated in compound manners from various perspectives. A part of the social and cash related costs are self-evident, anyway a better evaluation uncovers prices to society that are not effortlessly determined yet have to now not be disregarded. There are a few folks that would possibly take a gander at capital punishment as a need and contend that the blessings to society warrant its proceeded with use.

However, the opposite side could convey that there are various layers to the problem, a few excellent and moral, and that we lose substantially more than we benefit by shielding what could be viewed as an antiquated case of our country’s tough past. For one to get capital punishment, their wrongdoing ought to be equivalent to their subject or it conflicts with the Eighth Amendment’s limit on cruel and uncommon area (LII). Individuals who were accused of capital punishment had carried out some wrongdoings. As indicated via an ongoing net Sentencing for Life article, 81.8% of people condemned to capital punishment submitted murder, 6.7% submitted assault, 1.9% had been in charge of a slave revolt, 1.7% submitted a thievery, and 1.1% became from burglaries (Controversial Topics).

Since most of the human beings who have been sentenced to the demise penalty from murdering someone, they match into the category of ‘a watch for a watch,’ (Pros and Cons). In the US specifically, about 1,188 human beings had been finished between 1977 and 2009, mainly with the aid of deadly injection (Pros and Cons).

The death penalty has information inside the United States that consists of public executions, accusations of the loss of lifestyles penalty being merciless and uncommon punishment, protests for and toward capital punishment, and maximum those days numerous findings of mistakes in convictions ensuing in many former dying row inmates being released due to proof of their innocence. The United States has taken into consideration many execution strategies come and go in the path of the remaining hundred years, including hangings, the firing squad, the electrical powered chair, and the gas chamber. Some of these are nevertheless alternatives in some states, however deadly injection has emerged as the popular execution approach all through most states who exercise their capital punishment rights.

In colonial instances executions were accomplished in public and were a perfect shape of entertainment. We have considered the stop of public executions, with the remaining one being accomplished in 1936, in line with Clear and Cole (2003). There are however a few who argue for the reinstatement of public or televised executions, and the arguments for every factor of this trouble elevate valid points. I don’t forget the apparent arguments toward televising or making public an execution is first and most vital the condemned man or woman’s right to privacy, and the easy fact that watching a human lifestyle could be stunning and provoking to many members of our society. An argument for permitting viewing of executions was made by manner of Phillip Weise; he asserts that ‘televised executions ought to be legally mandated to entirely educate the public approximately the political and bodily effects of capital punishment’.

An captivating addition to the hassle of public execution happened in 2001, whilst Timothy McVeigh asked to have his execution publicly broadcast. Prison officials had been thinking of a closed-circuit broadcast inside the jail for approximately 250 household members of McVeigh’s sufferers who all wished to observe the proceedings. Mr. McVeigh raised equal right of access to worries, and therefore made the request for a public broadcast, which turned into as soon as summarily denied by prison officials (Compton, 2001 para. 2). Death Penalty sentencing inside the United States is a trouble that generally inspires robust critiques every for and in the direction of the execution of criminals in our correctional system. The subject matter of the death penalty incites heated debates from both aspects, irrespective of what a character’s factor of view is on the subject, severe emotions still appear to be connected to their critiques. All supporters and critics publish large volumes of content that guide their views within the wish of attracting detractors on their side. A brief quest for ‘capital punishment’ on line turns up masses of website listings which contain lots of pages of files and essays on the subject.

According to figures from the Bureau of Justice and Death Penalty History, in 1967 the Supreme Court suspended all executions until a selection at the constitutionality of capital punishment might be made, mainly whether it can be considered cruel and unusual punishment, thereby breaching the Constitution. The Supreme Court dominated that death penalty changed into now not in violation of the Constitution and inside the The Supreme Court dominated that capital punishment changed into no longer in violation of the charter and America noticed the reinstatement of the dying penalty in 1976. We have had demonstrations and reasons for and towards the exercise of capital punishment from the go back of death penalty to the prevailing day. Recently, thanks to trendy medical advances, the subject has gained accelerated specifically.The advance in the availability of and the precision of DNA testing. Capital punishment supporters say it serves as a deterrence and retribution, as well as incapacitating the convicted to commit future crimes. There is no doubt that the death penalty can kill the convict, but the ones antagonistic argue that there’s no proof that the loss of life penalty acts as a disincentive and that justice and punishment may be administered with out taking a human existence. Disability can be finished by life imprisonment, so there’s a viable execution desire that basically negates the declare that we want capital punishment for disability.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) addresses the issue on their internet site with the subsequent statement.

‘Capital punishment is the closing denial of civil liberties. The ACLU opposes capital punishment underneath all circumstances because it violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, is run arbitrarily and unfairly, and fails to deter crime or improve public safety.’

While the controversy goes on, number of Americans surveyed are in aid of the precept of capital punishment, in line with Clear and Cole (2003), provided it’s miles implemented justly and appropriately. They also show that public opinion shifts while a sentencing choice is proposed, ‘When the share of Americans supports an specific choice to the death penalty-lifestyles imprisonment with no possibility of parole Americans favoring the death penalty drops to near 50 percentage.’ This is a very interesting shift due to the fact capital punishment has continually had approval scores well over the 50 percent mark, if Americans divide themselves similarly on the problem it will open the doorways to new regulation and possibly signal the quit of capital punishment inside our nation.

Throughout the ultimate decade there has been a enormous shift in the arguments both for and towards capital punishment, due in part to scientific advances inside the DNA field. The argument now does no longer necessarily cognizance on whether capital punishment works as a deterrent or is morally just, or even if the death penalty is being carried out fairly. The new problem is must we continue to use capital punishment as a sentencing option when mistakes are continuously being made at the correctional and judicial fields. DNA evidence is being used to show that severa mistakes have took place and are still happening in capital punishment cases.

In January of 2000 Illinois Governor George H. Ryan declared a moratorium on the executions of all Illinois loss of life row inmates. He mentioned the following as his reasoning for the moratorium.

‘I now choose a moratorium, because I actually have grave issues about our state’s shameful file of convicting innocent human beings and placing them on demise row,’ Governor Ryan said. ‘And, I believe, many Illinois citizens now feel that equal deep reservation. I cannot guide a system, which, in its administration, has confirmed to be so fraught with errors and has come so near to the final nightmare, the state’s taking of harmless life. Thirteen human beings were located to have been wrongfully convicted.’

With this statement and the ban Governor Ryan viably propelled the war of capital punishment rivals beyond what any degree of fighting would ever do. Senator Ryan indicated boldness in admitting to the diverse missteps made in the death penalty instances and shed light on the way that demise penalty is a territory in which there should be no room for give and take. McCuen allotted an article now not long after the ban became effective which incorporated the accompanying remark, ‘Executions must stop till all emotions are painstakingly looked into to guarantee there are no guiltless people looking ahead to capital punishment. The province of Illinois, confronting excusing evidence, has set free greater death row detainees than it has executed. With numbers that manner, there is little uncertainty the Illinois and extraordinary states have unfairly executed numerous guiltless people’.

In maximum fields a margin of mistakes is appropriate and expected. When handling human lives mistakes are not acceptable. If a person spends years locked far from their circle of relatives and pals before being exonerated there’s no manner to ever update that point they have lost, and the impact of one character being eliminated from a family has a long way reaching results for diverse participants of society. It is no longer most effective for the direct family who’s affected, but also all of society, we’re buying that man or woman to be incarcerated, and in all likelihood their own family is relying on social packages to survive because of the missing income from that family member being locked away. The purpose so many errors are being revealed is because of DNA proof being used to exonerate a convicted and evidence their innocence.

DNA trying out has advanced to a degree where it could easily, and value effectively be used to prove conclusively whether or not a person is responsible for committing a crime. In many instances DNA proof is being used to release those previously sentenced to the death penalty with the aid of proving they couldn’t have dedicated the crime they had been sentenced for. Human beings are not infallible, and errors are sure to arise in life, and we’re seeing every day that the correctional field is not proof against human error. The hassle is that with capital punishment somebody’s life hangs in the balance, while a mistake occurs, we’ve to comprehend that if the sentence has already been carried out it is too past due to correct the error.

The frequency of finding harmless people on loss of death row has improved so dramatically that corporations are actually being shaped whose sole cause is to find harmless demise row or even general jail population inmates and use conclusive DNA evidence to free them. One such business enterprise is The Innocence Project; they may be a non-earnings felony sanatorium which operates out of the Benjamin J. Cordoza School of Law in New York City. The venture became based in 1992 by means of the cutting-edge directors, Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Nuffield. They accept instances from all around the United States and all criminal paintings are supplied seasoned bono upon their recognition of a case. The simplest cost for the defendant is the value of the DNA checking out, and a few defendants can find advocacy companies to cowl this expense. The Innocence mission accepts instances wherein DNA proof has no longer yet been used as evidence, and where it can conclusively prove innocence. The Innocence Project does not now offer felony recommendation or research, but they make available on the Innocence Project website a list categorized by means of kingdom of packages and agencies that do provide those services.

There are masses of examples of women and men who’ve spent years of their lives on loss of life row, later to be freed by means of DNA evidence. One such guy is Ray Krone from Arizona, who spent over two years on death row before being exonerated by way of DNA proof in April of 2002. There are absolutely many others who’ve spent a good deal longer behind bars than Krone, but he is giant due to the fact he changed into the 100’Th harmless individual launched from an American demise row after being exonerated. There are countless testimonies of households being torn apart because of errors in our judicial system, however to enter the ones might now not accomplish anything. Although they’re touching and do successfully add to the argument for capital punishment reforms, in the end it comes down to data.

The variety of mistakes taking place is just too excessive to support persevering with our modern systems. I consider the relaxation of the country’s desire to follow Governor Ryan’s instance and claim a country wide moratorium on all death row cases, until we are able to overview the device and accurately report the troubles mainly to innocent humans being convicted. Some of the underlying causes that cause innocent people being sentenced to die include perjured or coerced memories at trails in which the accused is represented by way of a court docket appointed lawyer who is paid by using taxpayer’s dollars but isn’t even constitutionally obligated to stay awake during the trail, most effective to be present. Everyone in America is entitled to legal representation, however the information is that if you can come up with the money for the nice lawyers, you’ll get the excellent defense. In many instances earlier than the accused even has the chance to guard themselves in a courtroom their destiny has already been sealed with the aid of the very cops who have sworn to guard and shield them. There have been numerous cases in which it’s far alleged that law enforcement officials have tampered with proof or coerced testimony from other inmates looking for a lighter sentence to ensure they get a conviction and may close their case.

There will continually be a debate in our country over the deserves of capital punishment, and whether or not it is in reality wanted to preserve our society safe. We know we can incapacitate offenders without executing them, so the issue remains whether or not our society must rationalize taking a human life, in the call of justice. There may in no way be a solution to this dilemma and so we need to focus not on whether we want capital punishment, however whether or not it’s far running as intended. The facts display it is not, and numbers do not lie or rely upon moral arguments, they consist of strong black and white nonnegotiable statistics just like the following from the Death Penalty Information Center.

Those who’re anti-death penalty convey up one thing that is very important: irrevocable errors. In the case that a supposed criminal is being charged with the dying penalty and goes through with it, what happens while that ‘criminal’ turns out to be innocent? Fortunately, out of the 87 humans who’ve been freed from loss of life row due to the fact they had been later proven innocent, never certainly went through with their sentenced dying penalty (Pros and Cons). This approach that there’s an error rate of one innocent person for each seven people executed, which is certainly uncalled for (Pros and Cons). If this error become to manifest and an harmless man or woman become to be killed with the aid of deadly injection or another shape capital punishment, which might essentially be referred to as murder. If this changed into the case, shouldn’t the authorities be charged with the loss of life penalty for committing a capital crime? The anti-loss of life penalty humans declare that through casting off that form of punishment they may be also eliminating even the slightest hazard of this error from happening (Pros and Cons).

What ought to make human beings query their view of this topic is that each side has legitimate points. One may think that the loss of life penalty might be suitable in the event that they had suffered a loss in their lifestyles and recognise what it looks like to have someone taken from them and want a feel of revenge to make them sense better. Others may aspect with the anti-demise penalty in the event that they agree with a crook ought to have to stay with what they did for the rest of their existence, continuously being reminded of the results of their actions. What makes human beings lean more in the direction of keeping the death penalty is the truth that they need the murderer to section the equal factor that the sufferer felt, which ultimately results in loss of life. Although lifestyles in jail also result in dying, so long as parole is in no way an option, the mourning own family members sense the need to execute the assassin as soon as possible so that they do not now have time to be proven innocent or get on parole.

While the anti-death penalty believers have many strong reasons as to why it ought to now not be used, the reality of the matter is that we need it today no matter what. Even though lifestyles imprisonment and the dying penalty each bring about loss of life, the elements that make up each punishment are what reason the argument of which one is better. Many humans sense as even though they will no longer be capable of circulate from the lack of a loved one until the person that killed them is ‘rightfully punished,’ as consistent with themselves (Sentencing for Life). Although there are good motives to remove the demise penalty, distraught Americans could honestly no longer stay without it.

Short Essay on Capital Punishment (250 Words)

What is the principal explanation behind capital punishment? Human developments have been doing capital punishment for 4,000 years back. Capital punishment is held today for ruthless and deplorable wrongdoings, for example, first-degree murder. Nations like China, Iran, Japan, and India extend capital punishment for monotonous fierce wrongdoings, for example, assault, rape, or explicit medication offenses. Here is a portion of the upsides and downsides of capital punishment. Here are a few experts on capital punishment. It is an approach to give equity to unfortunate casualties’ security for an all-inclusive community safe. It’s a social desire to carry on with your existence with no mischief from others. When there is somebody who chooses to conflict with this desire by carrying out a vicious wrongdoing, at that point there must be steps taken to give every other person the wellbeing that they merit. Capital punishment gives an aware result. Capital punishment has two basic results with regards to how beyond words. At this moment, capital punishment is barbarous yet can be helpful on occasion. Individuals have been slaughtered by snoozing by somebody who gives a deadly infusion that in a split second can bring somebody from breathing which implies they are to an abrupt halt.

We have failed to address how easily the law can simply blame somebody for wrongdoing and they do whatever is in their will to slaughter anyone they can do at their own unrestrained choice. As much as you can say that we could be alive in light of the fact that they have executed those who have hurt people groups’ lives and we could be next for accomplishing something as little as somebody attempting to murder us yet then we guard ourselves by shooting them back. They could be sent to prison or be given capital punishment on account of a last-chance circumstance which makes them either pass on or go kick the bucket at a charge you know your getting on the off chance that you contemplated it obviously. I need to show how barbarous this can truly be. This is the reason I will appear about the cons of capital punishment. It accompanies a danger of a guiltless individual being executed Regardless of whether the proof is clear about an individual accomplished something incorrectly yet perhaps it wasn’t purposeful and possibly they were extorted and in the event that they squealed on them they will slaughter somebody dearest to them.

Van Den Haag Capital Punishment: Critical Essay

There is a lot of contention in the public sphere concerning the reinstating of the death penalty. Many feel that the reinstating of the death penalty might be controversial because innocent people that are falsely accused of crimes they did not commit might not be able to reach a timely recourse to prove their innocence. Therefore, I feel that the death penalty should not be reinstated in South Africa, due to its dark history and the negative connotations it draws to the country. In addition, this essay will be looking at the history of countries that constituted the death penalty, the implications of it, and what can be used as an alternative method to ensure law and order, without taking the lives of people whether they are criminals or victims.

Although people feel that reinstating the death penalty would curb crime and deter criminals from committing offenses, according to evidence this is not often the case. “Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death penalty states.” (Bedau 1973:5). In addition, how can we as a country reinstate something that would bring more death at the hands of innocent people? As a matter of fact, these people that would be ‘killed’ need to be done by someone who has nothing to do with the repercussions of the criminals affected. As a consequence, more people in unfavorable circumstances could possibly be executed for crimes they never committed, which are often not reversible (Van Den Haag 1969:141). It is no surprise that many people could lose their lives, without juries finding the necessary evidence to prove their guilt. Therefore, I feel that people have the right to fight for justice, for the fact that they might be ‘framed’ for something they have never committed. According to (Bedau 1973:5) it is more likely for crimes to witness an increase in countries where the death penalty is constituted in comparison to countries that do not have the death penalty. Moreover, even though a crime is committed in a society where the death penalty is established or not, citizens’ desire to commit an abominable crime might outweigh their fear of being executed for their crimes (Van Den Haag 1969:145). Finally, the psychological and sociological implications might even have worse effects on families that were affected by this government-sanctioned practice.

Citizens might feel that capital punishment is useful to benefit the majority. For instance, if people were planning on overthrowing the state, their victorious expectation might far exceed their fear of being put to death by the state (Van Den Haag 1969:145). Nevertheless, capital punishment might cause people to seek revenge for the pain that this practice has placed on their mental capacity. As a consequence, people might not be deterred by this death-threatening penalty if they want to take the law into their own hands by seeking retribution. “An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder.” (Bedau 1973:15). Furthermore, it does not matter who the victims are of abominable crimes, the death penalty would not restore justice through similar attacks. For this reason, alternative measures such as life sentences might be more appropriate since everyone has the constitutional right to life.

In a civil society, life imprisonment is considered the just and fair punishment practice to bring offenders to the book. Since every citizen has the right to life, it is pivotal that they must be able to prove their innocence, even if it means that they need to do so for the rest of their lives to prove it. According to (Van Den Haag 1969:145) disobedient characters are more inclined to break the law if penalized with strict prison sentences, but this is not quite the opposite if replaced with the death penalty. Furthermore, if any severe form of punishment needs to be implemented to deter criminals, then surely life imprisonment would be more effective, since offenders would be locked away long enough not to do it again (Bedau 1973:5). Consequently, reinstating the death penalty would only leave more families in grief and pain, due to the ineffectiveness that two wrongs do not make it morally permissible to kill another.

Although I fully disagree with the death penalty, however, what I am sure of is that there are a lot of other measures that can be used to deter criminals and bring down the crime rate in South Africa. Moreover, experts suggest that violence should be treated as a public health concern, where people should be assisted and needs to feel appreciated, rather than rejected and considered a societal problem (Larsson 2020). In addition, if people are not supported through their problems this could cause more offenses, in comparison to societies where people are given support structures. According to (Writer 2020) the validation of capital punishment is the same as endorsing cold-blooded murder. In other words, there are better alternative measures to curb violent crimes and criminal activities, and this is supported by experts. Some may challenge that life imprisonment might not be an effective alternative to curb crime in South Africa. However, life imprisonment has been statistically more effective in other countries, but not the same can be said about capital punishment. Nevertheless, my argument is that life sentences are more effective to address crime in South Africa.

Finally, reinstating the death penalty in South Africa would not put an end to crimes, but might even increase it. According to (Bedau 1973:5) “death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death penalty states. During the 1980s, death-penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5 criminal homicides per 100,000 of the population; abolition states averaged a rate of 7.4.” In addition, South Africa is also one of the most unequal countries in the world, however, taking poverty out of the criminal equation does not necessarily mean that our crime rate would decline. Countries such as the United States where the death penalty is still in practice, also do not see a reduction in crime despite the fact that they have been able to increase the shortage of job opportunities (Van Den Haag 1969:144). As a consequence, reinstating the death penalty which has caused more damage than good in the past, would be to risk repeating the mistakes we have done in the past, instead of respecting lives whether their a criminal or not through punishing criminals with harsh life sentences.

In my final analysis, it is evident that the reduction in crime is not a result of the death penalty. Moreover, if the death penalty were to be reinstated in South Africa it would not against any evidence better the crime rate. On the contrary, every citizen has the constitutional right to life and that decision does not depend on the state to decide whose life to take. Capital punishment has been practiced by the state before, even though it was done in a different historical background it still has not been effective in the reduction of crime. Nevertheless, despite the ineffectiveness of the death penalty concerning other countries and particularly in South Africa, justice could never be restored if capital punishment is used as a corrective measure, and therefore it should be replaced by implementing harsh life sentences for affected criminals.