Death Penalty (Term Paper Sample)

Henry Nabea
Professor #
Social Justice #
May 1, 2013.
Death Penalty
The use of death penalty or capital punishment is one of the most controversial issues in Social Science studies. Scholars in social sciences are divided on whether or not the use of death penalty as a mean of punishing offenders is justifiable. One group of the scholars contend that death penalty is the most effective form of punishment for the criminals who have committed heinous crimes like murder and robbery with violence (Macdonald, 88). The other group of scholars, on the other hand, argue that death penalty is not an effective method of punishing the offenders and that the punishment does not lead to the intended objectives. A review of these arguments in favour of and against death penalty shows that death penalty is, indeed, an efficacious mean of punishing criminals guilty of serious and heinous crimes. This paper, therefore, evaluates the debates in favour of and against capital punishment and presents a coherent and logical debate in favour of death punishment. In the presentation of the arguments in favour of death penalty, Stephen Toulmin’s model of argumentation is applied (Stephen Toulmin, online). The application of the Toulmin’s model of argumentation helps in presenting the arguments in a coherent and logical manner.
There are three main arguments in support of death penalty as an effective mean of punishing the offenders who are guilty of crimes of high magnitude. The first argument is based on the claim that death penalty deters crime. Death penalty as a deterrent mean to further commission of crime is one of the main reasons why death penalty is practiced in many jurisdictions. As a mean of punishing the criminals for their offences, death penalty deters further commission of crime in two ways.
In the first way, by killing the offenders of crimes of high magnitude, for instance a murderer, the murderer will have no further opportunity to commit the crime again (Maulsby, 28). This in effect means that the crimes of murder will drastically reduce in that particular area. Although there are some studies that tend to refute this fact, there are, however numerous studies that corroborate this fact. For instance in the study by Erhlich, carried out in USA in an attempt to find out whether, really, capital punishments lead to reduction in crime rate, it was found that, there is, indeed, a strong correlation between death penalty and the rate of crimes, especially crimes of high magnitude like murder ( Arguments for and against Death Penalty, online). The study showed a significant reduction in crime, in places where death penalty is practiced as compared to other places where different means of punishing such criminals is practiced. But, apart from the studies that tend to support the view that death penalty can lead to reduction in crime, it is also, a matter of common sense that, when the people who are committing crimes are abolished or killed, then the rate of crimes will significantly reduce because they will not have another opportunity to commit the crimes.
The second reason why death penalty leads to reduction in crime is due to the fact that by killing the offenders of serious crimes, other people with the intent to kill will be afraid of doing so for fear of the consequences that would befall them(Goel, 2008). People, naturally, fear severe punishments, especially death, and so, when the law prescribes death penalty for serious crimes, then many people, utterly out of fear for the death, will refrain from committing such crimes. Although there are some studies contradicting this fact, arguing that death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crimes( Arguments for and Against Death Penalty, online) there are contrary studies supporting the view that death penalty instils fear among the criminals and, therefore, prevents them from committing crimes. But it is a fact that some people commit crimes due to psychological problems and for these kinds of people, death penalty cannot prevent them from committing crimes because, they commit crimes out of uncontrollable strong psychological impulse. But it is not true that all people who commit crimes do so out of psychological disorder. This therefore shows that use of death penalty as a mean of punishing the criminals can lead to reduction of crimes.
The third reason why death penalty can act as a deterrent, is due to the fact by killing criminals, you break the chain of crimes. It is a fact that some criminals have organised themselves into an elaborate network and that operates from a central command point. These groups of organised criminals also do recruitments for new members. In order to effectively dismantle such criminal organisations, it is necessary to eliminate, through killing, the think tanks and the commanders of such criminal gangs. By dismantling such organised criminals, through killing, you will have broken the chain of crimes and by that; the killing of the criminals will have deterred more crimes from being committed.
Apart from deterrence, the second ground on which death penalty can be justified is on the retribution ground. The proponents of this position hold that criminals deserve to be punished because they deserve punishment. By committing crimes, retribution theory of justice holds, the criminals are inviting upon themselves punishment that is proportionate to the crime that they commit (Bowers, 4). Punishing the criminals therefore on this ground is justifiable since it is giving the offenders their just and fair deserts. On this ground, therefore, death penalty is a just and fair to the criminals who have committed serious crimes like murder or robbery with violence. There are two reasons to support this position.
First, when criminals commit felony (Serious crimes like murder), they do so freely without compulsion from anybody, otherwise the criminals wouldn’t be held culpable for their actions. This means that the person is free either to commit the offence or not to commit it. Secondly, for the criminal to be regarded as responsible for their actions, the criminal must be mentally sound, they shouldn’t be insane. This means that the criminal knew very well of the consequences of their actions, including the consequence of them being punished for their crimes. But the punishments that they should be subjected to should be proportionate to the magnitude of the crimes that they commit, the higher the crime in magnitude the higher the punishment.
The above facts mean that by choosing to commit crime, the criminals have freely, without compulsion and with full knowledge of the consequences, chosen to commit crime, and therefore this means that they have freely chosen to be punished for their crimes. And with death penalty being the most severe form of punishment that one can be subjected to, the offenders who commit serious crimes that threaten or take away the lives of other people should be killed. For example, a serial murderer should be killed because by killing other people deliberately, they should also be killed because by killing other people, they are wishing, as it were, to be also killed. This is the only punishment that befits this kind of crimes. While some people would argue that life imprisonment without any possibility of parole is the harshest type of punishment compared with death penalty, death penalty is the punishment that is proportionate to the punishment of taking away another person’s life. Also, death punishment is the most feared form of punishment and this shows that it is, indeed, the most severe and the most effective form of punishment for the offenders of serious crimes.
This position that criminals commit crime deliberately and with full knowledge of the consequences for their crimes is severely criticized by the people who oppose death penalty as a form of punishment for the offenders guilty of serious crimes. In their arguments, they contend that it is not true that people who commit crimes do so willingly, and by so doing, they wish upon themselves the bad consequences of their actions (crimes) to befall them. This group or scholars, who mainly understand crime as having originated from the society, or as being some form of psychological disorder, argue that criminals do not cause crime willingly and intentionally. And for this reason, they contend that the primary reason for punishing criminals should be to reform them but not to punish them for the sake of their actions. This group of scholars, therefore, are greatly opposed to the use of death penalty as a form of punishment for the criminals who commit crimes of highest magnitude.
But a critical look at this position that criminals should not be punished because of their crimes shows that the position is wrong and misleading. The only group of people who can be claimed to commit crimes unintentionally and without knowledge of the consequences for their actions are the mentally incapacitated criminals. But in all the jurisdictions of the world, this concern has been taken care of by the principle of mens rea (The Intention to commit a wrongful act, online). But for the mentally sound criminals, who commit crime without any form of compulsion, they should account for their crimes and they should be punished for the crimes. This will help in making people responsible and will rid the society of the criminals.
The second reason to support death penalty on retribution ground is that death penalty restores the moral balance that has been disturbed by the felonious crimes (Burleigh, chapter 1). All crimes bring about a certain moral imbalance, and this therefore calls for a restoration of the disturbed moral balance. This can be achieved through appropriate punishment that is proportionate to the crime committed. And for this reason, some severe crimes like ...