Category: Capital Punishment

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Mark DeWine,

This letter is a request for the discontinuation of capital punishment in the state of Ohio. This argument will focus on three key themes including the human rights perspective, cost analysis, and deterrence. The main argument revolves around the question of whether individuals should have the right to debate about the lives of other people.

Capital punishment is one of the most controversial contemporary issues in the world. This type of punishment still exists in modern America due to various reasons. The debate about the morality of the death penalty has been around for a long time. The central question remains on whether capital punishment should be legal. Various issues always feature in this debate despite the position that one chooses to adopt in this argument (Torin, 2016). The Eighth Amendment in the United States Constitution highlights that each American Citizen has the protection against unusual and cruel punishment in the criminal justice system. American history also shows multiple cases where judges ruled against the death penalty leading to the question of the morality of capital punishment.

The basis of this type of punishment was that it could deter criminals and prevent citizens from committing violent crimes. It is also viewed as a cheap financial way of punishing wrongdoers in a manner that provides retribution to crime victims and their families while at the same time affirming righteous life. Edward Koch originally refuted this argument supporting capital punishment claiming that it was intentional, hypocritical, and government-approved murder in a society that frowns upon taking away human life. The Supreme Court Case of Furman V. Georgia was able to abolish the death penalty in 1972 because all the available methods of capital punishment including electrocution, hanging, and the gas chamber were forms of unusual and cruel punishment.

Edward Koch supports this understanding, pointing out that the seizure of any human life cheapens the value of life as a concept, and mankind should never put a price on it. Many people, however, view this type of punishment as an economical way of dealing with criminals as opposed to spending funds taking care of them in prison. States around the world also carry out a cost analysis of each policy to gauge its impact on the budget. Capital punishment is one of the policies considered in this setting. The way an individual defines the cost of the death penalty, however, is relative depending on their analysis. One could choose to take into account each step taken during a death penalty case, inclusive of the investigations, trials, and appeals. One might also choose to analyze the extra costs that states could use after capital punishment (Peter, Et al, 2016). The most common perception is that capital punishment saves money because the state no longer has to take care of the criminal. Contrary to this belief, a study conducted by the Death Penalty Information Centre revealed that states pay up to $1 million more for each death penalty trial as compared to non-death penalty cases. New York and New Jersey are some of the states that chose to abandon the death penalty due to the high costs of prosecution (Peter, Et al, 2016). The argument that the death penalty saves money is shallow and inaccurate.

The question of capital punishment as a form of deterrence is also a major theme. The basis of this argument is whether or not the death penalty can prevent individuals from committing murder crimes. In the 18th century, this understanding was the most crucial reason for the implementation of capital punishment. Most states implement various laws to deter individuals from potentially carrying out unlawful acts (Dezhbakhsh, Rubin, and Shepherd, 2008). This logic implies that if murderers receive the death sentence, any other individual willing to commit a similar crime would have to think twice or risk losing their life. Criminologists have tried analyzing data on murders to find out whether there is a correlation between the two factors. These investigations reveal that death penalties are not effective deterrents (Donohue III, and Wolfers, 2006). This observation is evident in the United States where states that do not have the death penalty have fewer murder cases as opposed to those that still implement capital punishment. These investigations further reveal that the rate of murder in states that support death penalties went higher after the publication of murder. A study by Ehrlich and Northeastern University reveals that the death penalty does little to reduce murder crimes but instead increases the rate of these delinquencies. The results of this study prove that death penalties indeed have the opposite effect in deterring crime. Multiple other studies have replicated this research and found similar results.

This argument is simpler when viewed from a human rights perspective because each individual has the right to life. This perspective does not focus on the costs or deterrence effect but rather on the question of whether states should have the power to decide who dies or lives. Capital punishment essentially gives the state the right to kill, which has in the past been misused even for minor offenses. The holocaust and the Second World War proved that civil society had a critical role to play in restricting the state’s authority to kill. Human rights advocates highlight that capital punishment breaches two important human rights. Each individual has a right to life and a right to live free of torture (Yorke, 2016).

In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which protects these two rights against capital punishment. States should thus abolish this practice since they should oblige to the international norm. Capital punishment is a final and irrevocable act that no human should have over another. Its worst characteristic is that it does not take into account the probability of human error or the possibility of mistakes occurring in the justice system. Exonerations from death row are not rare and people from different states have been released due to their innocence (Borchard, 2013). Capital punishment could cost the life of an innocent person which again explains why states should eradicate this act.

Modern society is also greatly unequal in terms of classes which means that this power to kill can easily be misused to target certain social groups or political opponents (Davis, 2011). The frequency and means of the method of capital punishment might have changed over the years but the trend of the racial, regional, and economic pattern has persisted even in the 21st century. This is evidenced by the fact that the South took a different course from the North regarding capital punishment because this region had an abundant number of slaves hence the constant need to discipline the captive workforce. The use and adoption of capital punishment simply set the ground for more killings. Within this observation and analysis, murders and capital punishment are the same sides of a coin. Any state that seeks to protect the human right to live should not use capital punishment since it is an instrument that can easily abuse the rights it claims to protect.

In the process of policymaking, people must not miss the major point, especially in sensitive issues such as the death penalty. If states are not happy about people losing their lives to crimes, then they should not use capital punishment as condemnation. Instead, states should consider having an alternative form of punishment that does not involve killing anyone. For example, states could create a new type of prison that specifically caters to people who carry out heinous crimes. Capital punishment is a naïve solution as witnessed in the case of Osama Bin Laden whose death did not reduce the number of terrorist crimes around the world. His death in the United States was neither cost-effective nor a deterrent to criminal activities. Again, with the emphasis on the awareness of human rights in this century, no state should implement capital punishment (Yorke, 2016). The argument that it offers victims and their families is also wrong because this understanding implies that victims should feel entitled to kill their perpetrators. Such an understanding can only work with people living in a lawless society. Additionally, killing criminals would then make the victims the perpetrators and create a never-ending cycle of murders.

With this in mind, this letter concludes by requesting the State of Ohio to avoid becoming the monster it is trying to fight. The state should get rid of capital punishment and instead find an alternative that deters criminals from carrying out heinous activities.

Sign,

Grace Oppihle

References

1. Borchard, E. (2013). Convicting the Innocent, and State Indemnity for Errors of Criminal Justice. The Justice Institute, USA.
2. Davis, J. (July 01, 2011). Race, Class, and the Death Penalty: Capital Punishment in American History: Book Review. Peace & Change, 36, 3, 474-477.
3. Dezhbakhsh, H., Rubin, H. and Shepherd, M. (2008). Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect? Economics, Law and Individual Rights.
4. Donohue III, J., and Wolfers, J. (2006). Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate (No. w11982). National Bureau of Economic Research.
5. Peter, C., Robert, B., Matthew, H., & Mark, L. (September 05, 2016). An Analysis of the Economic Costs of Seeking the Death Penalty in Washington State. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 14, 3.
6. Torin, F. (August 24, 2016). The Death Penalty vs. Life Incarceration: A Financial Analysis. Susquehanna University Political Review, 7, 1.
7. Yorke, J. (2016). Against the Death Penalty: International Initiatives and Implications. New York, NY: Routledge.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.