CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

            Capital punishment is the use of the strongest punishment available to punish and prevent heinous crimes. It is the infliction of death as a punishment due to the crime; hence the name capital punishment. It has the highest interest in reducing crime especially that of murder. Death penalty is usually employed when the person sentenced (victim) is ascertained to be a great danger to the lives of so many people and to their physical, psychological and social well-being.

            Death penalty has to do with the termination of life not in the context of medical practice but in the context of judicial practice. Nigeria, for instance, as a country says ‘No’ to death penalty but it is still in her constitution, see penal code 419.

CASES OF DEATH PENALTY

            Examples of the cases that may attract death penalty are terrorism, kidnapping, murder, rape, molestation and so on.

            However, it is not everyone, state or religion that accepts the use of death penalty. And this, has given rise to various arguments and perspectives about the death penalty. These perspectives are divided into two: those who support capital punishment (the retentionists) and those who are against it (the abolitionists). Let us now discuss some of their views.

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY

1) Deterrence:

            The supporters of this view argue that capital punishment is morally upright for certain crimes as it ensures deterrence. They argue that if criminals especially murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential and prospective murderers will be deterred, discouraged and frightened from committing such actions for the fear of losing their own lives.

Hence, the retentionists argue that the death penalty permanently incapacitates the victim from future crimes, prevents intending criminals from venturing into such and severs the future recurrence of such crimes.

            On the other hand, the abolitionists argue that capital punishment is not a determent for future crimes since most people who commit crimes neither expect to be caught nor carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murderers are committed in moments of passion or anger or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. Sometimes, murder is not intended.

The abolitionists prefer the usage of life imprisonment to death penalty because society is brutalized and provoked by the use of death penalty leading sometimes to negative responses. In fact, sometimes, it hardens the heart of the criminals who are fed up with life, thereby increasing the likelihood of the increase in the crime. Thus, life imprisonment assures the safety of the society than death penalty because capital punishment neither prevents future crimes nor deters future murderers.

2) RETRIBUTION (VENGEANCE)

            The supporters of this view aver that when someone takes the life of another, the balance of justice in the society is disturbed and needs to be restored. Only the taking of the murderer’s life can restore this balance and show that the society considers murder as an intolerable crime. Hence, they argue that such crimes should be punished equally and proportionately as a matter of justice and to ensure that the murderer does not create more victims.

            Therefore, a just society requires death penalty for crimes of taking life (murder). A retribution is based in religious values which have historically maintained the propriety of an eye for an eye and a life for a life.

            The abolitionists argue that retribution is another word for revenge and payback. They opine that our justice system should not be reduced to revenge, as that will lead to execution of another life and extend the chain of violence. Since, we do not rape the rapist, or torture the torturer, we should not then kill the killer since there are other ways of punishment.

3) INNOCENCE

            The supporters of this view, the abolitionists, strongly asseverate that death penalty imposes an irrevocable sentence, such that once an inmate has been executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. Our capital punishment system is unreliable and has an intolerable risk of executing the innocent. They buttress this by noting that the DNA system has exonerated death row inmates shown to be guilty and deserving of death. Hence, if the DNA was not discovered, many innocent lives will be lost, and if it were discovered earlier, some other executed lives would have been proven innocent.

            Hence, they argue that wrongful execution is a preventable risk and the risk of executing the innocent precludes the use of the death penalty.

            Those against this view opine that the rare execution of innocent lives in the past is not a sufficient reason for the abolishing of the death penalty, because, far more innocent lives would have been lost from failure to impose such sentence.

Also, the DNA testing has also shown to be sometimes inconsistent in detecting crime victims, hence, cannot be completely relied upon. Therefore, the execution of the few innocents is a rare but acceptable risk for death penalty.

4) ARBITRARINESS AND DISCRIMINATION

            The supporters of this view argue that the death penalty does not single out the worst offenders, but selects an arbitrary group based on factors like, the quality of defense council, country in which the crime was committed, the race of the defendant as well as the sex of the defendant or victim.

            A poor defendant who cannot hire a good attorney is assigned one by the state, and ultimately gets a poor representation, and hence a death sentence. They also aver that the death penalty is applied unfairly with regard to racial disparities and discrepancies, and should not be used.

            Those against this view note that discretion has always been part of the justice system. They argue that blacks commit more murders than whites, but more whites have been executed according to records. Hence, the guilty should be punished appropriately regardless of colour. The existence of some systematic problems is no reason to abandon the whole death penalty.

MY POSITION

            I support the view that death penalty should be avoided, discontinued and abrogated from the justice system.

            This is because, life is sacred and any form unnatural termination contravenes the sanctity of human life. Life imprisonment is preferable, and even if it appears to endanger the lives of the others, efforts should be made at properly seeing to it that correctional facilities try to correct and excise those certain life-threatening tendencies that the criminal possesses.

Through this, wrongful killing of the innocent will be severed, future recurrence will be prevented and the proper correction of the individual will be achieved.

            There is something fundamentally wrong with the death penalty, and that is why it will remain ineffective in appropriately deterring murderers.