This article argues against the death penalty, arguing that it not only deprives offenders of their lives but also violates human dignity, and that its effectiveness as a deterrent to crime is uncertain and subject to the risk of wrongful conviction. Instead, they propose reforming and resocializing offenders through long-term correctional and therapeutic interventions, which they argue will enable society and the state to fulfill its responsibility to protect human life and dignity.
I oppose the death penalty. Most sex offenders and murderers commit their crimes while in a violent or pathological state. Other countries treat child molesters as mentally ill, not just criminals, and provide them with long-term treatment and correctional programs. In addition to congenital malignancy, social and environmental factors play a large role in the development of these mental illnesses. Childhood marginalization, abuse, and criminalization can all contribute to these mental problems. While society should strive to improve these environments for their well-being, it is also responsible for creating them. In addition, some sex offenders may have been sexually abused as children, leading them to become mentally ill, but society failed to prevent such crimes.
Therefore, when it comes to accountability for heinous crimes, the criminal is of course the most responsible, but the social environment that made it impossible for them to think rationally is also not completely free of blame. The death penalty, however, places all the blame on the criminal.
Moreover, if many violent criminals suffer from mental illness, they can be treated with long-term treatment and correctional programs, as is the case in other countries, to restore rational thinking and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. While one of the main reasons in favor of the death penalty is to take a criminal’s life and permanently remove them from society and eliminate the possibility of reoffending, humans are fallible beings with room for improvement. If the crime was committed as a result of a pathological condition, there’s no need to resort to extreme measures if it can be improved by treating the disease. Punishments other than the death penalty are stated to be aimed not only at preventing the offender from reoffending, but also at improving, edifying, and re-socializing him. However, the death penalty is a way to completely prevent the possibility of reoffense, which is not in line with the original idea of reform and correction. It is preferable to leave the possibility of improvement and rehabilitation, especially since crimes committed in a pathological state are more likely to be rehabilitated.
In the past, punishment was viewed as retribution for the crime, but expressing anger based on retribution alone is not conducive to the reformation of the offender or the redress of the victim. Executing a criminal, depending on how you feel at the time, may provide retributive satisfaction to the victim, but it has nothing to do with rehabilitating the victim. Therefore, it is appropriate to view punishment from the perspective of reform and edification rather than retribution, and to provide opportunities for those who have the potential to reform.
Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states that all citizens have dignity and worth as human beings and are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness. The state has the obligation to affirm and guarantee the inviolable and fundamental human rights of individuals, and therefore does not have the right to deprive a person of life. However, the death penalty is a violation of this human dignity. No one has the right to take another person’s life or treat them harshly. When a citizen is kidnapped during a conflict between nations, a country may suffer great losses to rescue them. If a stealth fighter jet breaks down and the pilot’s life is in danger, we do not condemn abandoning the jet to save the pilot. This is because human life is more precious and dignified than anything else. Human dignity is an important value that cannot be sacrificed for the existence of society, and it is the purpose of the law to protect it. However, the death penalty ignores this.
Korea is a liberal democracy that prioritizes human rights and human life, making it impossible to take them away. However, the death penalty demonstrates a denial of the absoluteness of human life by depriving criminals of their lives. It promotes a culture of disrespect for life in a country that is supposed to protect it by law. No matter how bad the criminal’s behavior is, seeing his life taken so easily can spread the perception that “heinous criminals deserve to die. This can undermine the perception that human life is precious, and there is no justification for depriving criminals of their lives with the death penalty, which disregards human dignity.
Furthermore, the executioner is killing in the name of “justice,” following the orders of the state. Even when ordered by the state, no one can justify killing for the purpose of punishing the guilty. In fact, many executioners are remorseful, and their memoirs reveal the pain of execution. It can also harm innocent people.
When a crime is committed, it’s up to humans to determine the punishment. However, humans are not gods, and mistakes can be made in the process of determining wrongdoing. Whether it’s due to a lack of evidence or an inadequate defense, there is always the possibility of a mistrial, and if a mistrial is discovered after the execution, there is no way to reverse it. As much as the death penalty deprives a person of their life, the tragedy of a wrongful death is unparalleled.
The death penalty has been adopted in some countries because of its deterrent effect on crime. While the hope is that the fear of punishment will reduce the likelihood of crime, the deterrent effect of the death penalty has not been clearly demonstrated by looking at felony crime rates in places where the death penalty has been abolished and where it has not. According to a United Nations study, Canada saw a steady decline in its homicide rate after abolishing the death penalty. South Korea hasn’t had the death penalty for a long time, but it hasn’t seen a decrease in heinous crimes like child sex offenses. The general deterrent effect of the death penalty is not significantly different from life imprisonment, so there is no significant benefit to maintaining the death penalty.
In a society where crimes, both large and small, are constant, people may feel emotionally that the death penalty is necessary, especially when it comes to heinous crimes like child sex offenses or serial killings. However, logically, the death penalty is not necessary. South Korea has ended dictatorship, achieved gender equality in employment, labor-management coexistence, and a welfare system that reduces the gap between the rich and the poor, and unites the people. In addition, the national consciousness is changing, with more victims of crimes increasing their respect for life and wanting clemency for those on death row. Internationally, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights emphasize the abolition of the death penalty. Given these trends, it’s time to “put the death penalty to death.
