death sentence abolish

Author

Tutor

Course

Date

Introduction

Capital punishment has for a long time been one of the most controversial subjects in the entire world. It mainly involves handing an individual a death penalty for a heinous crime such as murder, child rape and robbery with violence among others (Banner and Banner, 13). In the state of Florida, the execution is carried out using a lethal injection that was allowed by the legislature in January 2000 (Tucker, 3). Alternatively, an individual may be executed using the electric chair in the execution chamber situated at Florida State Prison (Tucker, 6). However, questions have emerged pertaining to the efficacy of the death punishment. There has been controversy as to whether a death sentence serves any positive purpose or whether it should be abolished. In my opinion, capital punishment or the death penalty should be abolished.

First, it is worth noting that judges can err in their judgment as far as the determination of the guilt of an individual. This underlines the fact that, there are instances when an innocent individual will be condemned to capital punishment or the death penalty simply because he or she cannot prove his innocence (Pojman and Reiman, 22). It goes without saying that the inability to prove one’s innocence does not necessarily underline his guilt. This raises the question as to whether justice would have been done in such instances (Pojman and Reiman, 24).

It is worth noting that once a miscarriage of justice has been done, as is the case of capital punishment, it cannot be undone. Death is always irrevocable in which case there would be no way of undoing the injustice of executing an innocent person. Philosophers have always stated that it is more preferable to free a thousand guilty people than to kill an innocent person. In essence, I think it would be preferable that these people are given life sentences with or without the option of parole to prevent the killing of innocent people.

In addition, death penalty seems to single out the poor. This is because they may not have sufficient financial muscle to hire proper lawyers, in which case they have to rely on the attorneys appointed by the court (Bedau, 24). In most cases, courts do not have sufficient capital to appoint appropriate representation, in which case the poor may end up being punished for wrongs that they did not commit. In fact, court-appointed attorneys are paid less than the minimum wage, in which case they are not motivated to invest sufficient effort in uncovering the truth about the cases (Pojman and Reiman, 34). The rich, however, can afford to hire qualified lawyers to argue their cases, as well as dig for justice. For example, O.J Simpson could afford a team of highly-qualified lawyers and even finance DNA testing thereby exposing the errors in the DNA evidence of the prosecution. This, however, is unlikely to have happened without the assistance of the attorneys.

In addition, the main reason for any sentence should be to compensate the wronged parties in a fair manner and possibly deter such actions in the future. In the case of death penalties, it goes without saying that the wronged parties would not in any way be compensated by the execution of the presumed wrongdoer.

Of course, proponents of the death penalty opine that it gives the victims a feeling that justice has been done. However, this is not the case. For example, in instances where an individual is presumed to have raped a child, killing him would not compensate the wronged party (Pojman and Reiman, 28). Moreover, how just would it be if an innocent person is executed just to satisfy the will of the wronged parties? In such instances, it would be preferable to follow the suggestions of sociologists, who opine that such individuals should be handed a life sentence where they would work to support the wronged parties. In fact, such measures would offer criminals a chance to reform their ways, which should be the fundamental pillar for law (Bedau, 55).

In addition, proponents argue that the death penalty is the only way that can effectively deter people from committing violent crimes. However, this theory has been proven wrong and inaccurate by statistics. Statistics show that after the lifting of the ban on death penalty in 1976 by the United States Supreme Court, states that have the highest rate of executions also had higher rates of violent crime than states that had lower rates of executions (Pojman and Reiman, 56). For example, from 1982 to 1991 Texas witnessed a rise in the rates of crime by 24% and the rate of violent crime by 46% after reenacting the death penalty statute. It is worth noting that at this time, Texas had executed around 355 people. California, on the other hand saw an increase of crime rate by only 5% yet it had executed only 11 people. This underlines the fact that death penalty does not serve as an effective deterrent of violent crime (Pojman and Reiman, 67).

These points underline the need for the abolishment of the death penalty. It is improper to execute an individual especially considering that human beings can make an error of judgment, thereby executing an innocent person. This is complemented by the fact that death is irreversible, in which case the execution of an innocent person would be a permanent and irrevocable miscarriage of justice. In addition, it does not serve as an effective deterrent of crime, nor does it serve as sufficient compensation to the wronged parties.

Works cited

Banner, Stuart and Banner, Stuart. The Death Penalty: An American History. New York: Harvard University Press, 2003. Print

Pojman, Louis P. and Reiman, Jeffrey H. The Death Penalty: For and Against. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998. Print

Bedau, Hugo Adam. The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print

Tucker, Kenneth S. Florida Department of Corrections: Death Row Fact Sheet. Web retrieved from HYPERLINK “http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/deathrow/” http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/deathrow/

(Bedau, )