Tuesday, May 8, 2007
'The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder' Do you agree?
Arguments from critics over the death penalty as a form of capital punishment exists since it became lawful. The developed nations – United States, Japan, South Korea and Singapore which practice capital punishment consider people who are involved in first degree murder, terrorist activities, treason or activities which threaten the national security as committing capital crimes. Is the death penalty really a form of justice, serving as a deterrent or is it murder for revenge?Murder under the law, as defined by an online dictionary, is the killing of another human being with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation. So personally, I do not equate the death penalty as committing a murder as I believe in the neccessity of it as a precedent to others. The word which describes what one will feel from ancient methods of execution like crucifixation and tearing asunder to today’s hanging, injecting lethal substances and poison gas chamber is ‘fear’. People will thus first think of the consequences of their actions before executing them as fear strikes a reminder to them. Therefore, the death penalty serves as a deterrent warning to others against the consequences of crime, preventing repeat offences.
Death penalty makes an example of the felon, assuring the public that he no longer poses a threat to the society. In addition, it is also a way to return justice to the victim and his family members. Try putting yourself in the shoes of the family members of the murdered victim. I believe that the ‘life for a life’ feeling will be overwhelming even though the death of the murderer will never bring him back to life. It just serves as a very good form of comfort.
This lead to why the death penalty seems to be a murder instead of a deterrent as it makes people assume that personal emotions of the judiciary are involved so it is a form of revenge. The irreversibility in miscarriages of justice can create a very great impact on the society and perhaps people should consider what Voltaire, a French philosopher in the 17th century said, “It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.”
Moreover, who would want to die in such horrifying and undignified ways?
Supporters of the statement for this essay believe that rehabilitation should be favored over the death penalty as everyone has the rights and should be given a chance to turn over a new leaf. Researches have discovered that people who have committed capital crimes usually suffer from the ‘diminished responsibility’ syndrome where they do not have conscious or sympathy, not mentioning the concept of guilt or code of morality. So should they be hanged or be electrocuted to death because of the fact that they committed murder in a mentally unstable state? Do they deserve it when they are doing it unintentionally?
Moreover, what rights do we human have to play god in taking another’s life? It is obvious and understandable that two wrongdoings do not make a right; we are practicing retributive justice if we do that and thus, we are committing a murder.
However, after arguments from both sides, I disagree that death penalty is a murder. My view of it as a form of deterrent still stands strong as I believe that the consequences of committing capital crimes will serve as a very good warning and aforethought to people before they put on hands to what they want to do. All should be aware and carry the responsiblities of their actions.
*9.55pm*
Dreamt by Shurlene min at
