Erlano Francisco R.

Gacias
English Law

Should Capital Punishment Be Allowed or Should It Be Abolished?

Capital punishment, also known as death penalty, refers to the process of sentencing convicted
offenders by the state to death for the most serious crimes (capital crimes) and carrying out
that sentence. The specific offenses and circumstances that determine if a crime is eligible for a
death sentence are defined by statute and are prescribed by Congress or any state legislature.

Proponents of the death penalty argue that such a harsh penalty is needed for criminals who
have committed the worst crimes and that the punishment deters crime. Opponents of the
death penalty, on the other hand, argue that the punishment is cruel and unusual, and, thus,
unconstitutional.

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to capital crimes state that such a
harsh penalty is needed to discourage people from murder and terrorism. Opponents who
argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent to capital crimes state that there is no evidence
to support the claim that the penalty is a deterrent.

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed as retribution argue that “an eye for an
eye” is appropriate, that the punishment should match the crime, and that the penalty is
needed as a moral balance to the wrong done by the criminal. Opponents who argue that the
death penalty is not needed as retribution argue that reformative justice is more productive,
that innocent people are often killed in the search for retribution, and that “an eye for an eye
makes the whole world blind.”

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed to bring about closure and solace to
victims’ families argue that the finality of the death penalty is needed for families to move on
and not live in fear of the criminal getting out of prison. Opponents who argue that the death
penalty is needed to bring about closure and solace to victims’ families argue that retributive
“justice” does not bring closure for anyone and that the death penalty can take years of media-
friendly appeals to enact.

Proponents of abolishing the death penalty because innocent people may be executed argue
that humans are fallible and the justice system is flawed, putting more poor people on death
row than those who are guilty of capital crimes, and that we cannot risk executing one innocent
person just to carry about retributive “justice.” Opponents of abolishing the death penalty
because innocent people may be executed argue that the fact that death row inmates have
been exonerated proves that the checks and balances to prevent innocent people from being
executed are in place and working well, almost eliminating the chance that an innocent person
will be executed.
Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a moral punishment state that “an eye for an
eye” is justified to promote a good and just society than shuns evil. Opponents who argue that
the death penalty is an immoral punishment state that humans should not kill other humans,
no matter the reasons, because killing is killing.

Personally, I see death penalty as not a viable form of crime control. In one study conducted
among police chiefs in the US, they were asked to rank the factors that, in their judgment,
reduce the rate of violent crime. They mentioned curbing drug use and putting more officers on
the street, longer sentences and gun control. They ranked the death penalty as least effective. 

Capital punishment denies due process of law. Its imposition is often arbitrary, and always
irrevocable – forever depriving an individual of the opportunity to benefit from new evidence
or new laws that might warrant the reversal of a conviction, or the setting aside of a death
sentence.

As Cesare Beccaria, in his book On Crimes and Punishments puts it: “By legitimizing the very
behavior that the law seeks to repress—killing—capital punishment is counterproductive in the
moral message it conveys.”