The death penalty is inhumane, has the potential to victimize innocent people, and can be used as a political tool in autocratic regimes. It is also not proven to deter crime, and countries that have abolished the death penalty have lower crime rates. For the sake of respect for life and social safety, the death penalty should be abolished, and alternatives include strengthening social safety nets and protecting human rights.
I believe that the death penalty should be abolished. There are many problems with the death penalty today. While the prevailing opinion is that the worst criminals deserve the death penalty due to a recent spate of violent crimes, I take the opposite view. Is the death penalty a reasonable punishment? I don’t think so, so what are the problems with today’s death penalty?
First, the death penalty is inhumane. Currently, most developed countries, with the exception of the United States, are unconditionally opposed to the death penalty. As Amnesty International reminded us in the 1977 Stockholm Declaration, “The execution of the death penalty is an act of violence, violence tends to provoke violence, and the imposition of the death penalty brutalizes all those involved in the process.” According to the declaration, every execution is perceived as an act of cruelty by those involved in the execution, and undermines the value society places on human life. For example, on December 30, 2006, former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was hanged following a trial that failed to meet international fair trial standards. Iraqi authorities released a video of the moments leading up to the execution, and additional illegally recorded footage was circulated. The video, which showed prison guards mocking Saddam Hussein and details of the execution process, was condemned around the world.
The cruelty of the death penalty affects not only those on death row, but also their families, prison guards, and executioners. Judges, prosecutors, and other officials involved in the execution process are often faced with moral dilemmas that conflict with their own beliefs.
Additionally, the methods of execution themselves are inhumane. US law enforcement has tried to make executions more humane by implementing a variety of methods, including hanging, firing squad, gas chamber, electric chair, and even lethal injection. However, there are still painful executions, such as in the case of Angel Diaz, who was executed by lethal injection. He continued to move after the first injection, and only died 34 minutes after the second injection. An autopsy revealed that the poison was injected into his tissues, not his veins. Because of these problems, some states have suspended executions and are reviewing the issue. Injection of lethal injection, as well as other methods of execution, can violate the human rights of those on death row due to mistakes or their inherent inhumanity.
Second, the death penalty can also harm innocent people through wrongful convictions. According to Amnesty International, allegations continue to surface that innocent people have been executed in the last decade. In the U.S., 349 cases of wrongful convictions have been reported, resulting in the execution of 23 innocent people. These wrongful convictions often come to light through the appeals process or through chance newspaper reports. Former British Home Secretary Roy Jenkins concluded that “in 10 of the cases where the death penalty was imposed, there were many doubts about the guilt of the accused, and the frailties of human judgment mean that we must be even more cautious about final measures such as the death penalty.” These innocent people should not be victimized by the death penalty.
Third, the death penalty can be abused by dictators and autocratic regimes. Throughout the world’s history, not just our own, dictators have used the death penalty as a tool of political repression. There are numerous examples of dictators who have seized power through military coups and other means of executing their opponents. In recent years, 14 countries have carried out such politically motivated executions, which are often used as a means of eliminating political opponents under the guise of a fair trial. Under these regimes, the death penalty is nothing more than murder disguised as legal legitimacy.
Proponents of the death penalty argue that it makes inmates pay for their crimes and increases crime deterrence. In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, stating that there is no conclusive evidence that it is a deterrent to crime and that it is more conducive to protecting human rights. In the US state of Delaware, homicides increased after the death penalty was reinstated, and in Canada, which abolished the death penalty in 1976, the homicide rate actually decreased by 44%. There is a lack of evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime, and strengthening social safety nets is more effective in preventing crime.
Finally, some argue in favor of the death penalty because imprisoning inmates for life rather than executing them forces the state to pay for their living expenses. In fact, by 2012, South Korea’s death row cost the country an estimated 25.5 billion won, or about 25 million won per inmate. However, the logic of executing people for cost-saving reasons is an unjustified approach that reduces human rights to a cost issue. The decision to retain the death penalty should be based on the dignity of human life, not economic motivations.
These various rationales demonstrate that the death penalty is an evil that should be abolished worldwide. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, 139 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Most countries that once practiced the death penalty have abolished it, and very few have reintroduced it. However, there are still countries that retain the death penalty. While punishment for criminals is necessary, the death penalty is just another form of violence by the state. It’s better to strengthen social safety nets to prevent crime from happening than to keep the death penalty in place to protect people.
In conclusion, the death penalty should be abolished. However, it is not realistic to abolish the death penalty in all countries immediately. Therefore, countries that retain the death penalty should make efforts to abolish it gradually, and at the same time, improve the current system to make it more reasonable and humane.
