Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed?

Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed?
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed?
The death penalty remains a highly controversial issue in various jurisdictions globally. Some consider it as a deserved punishment for people who do heinous or brutal crimes. However, some view it as a demeaning form of punishment even if a person commits a horrific crime. So, death penalty will continue to draw conflicting arguments because people will bring up various justifications to support their case. In recent decades, many countries have outlawed it because of its degrading nature. A global initiative has been established to promote an anti-death penalty movement to discourage the punishment. The coalition features states, unions, and NGOs that have the objective of eliminating punishing capital offenders through the death penalty (Hood & Hoyle, 2015). The death penalty should be discouraged as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is a more sensible capital punishment. First, no conclusive evidence exists promote the notion that capital crimes can be reduced by using the death penalty. Supporters of the practice usually claim that it is effective in preventing commission of crime and enhancing public safety. They also consider life sentence as a lenient punishment for offer for those who commit heinous crimes. Yet, there is enough evidence to refute this reasoning from nations that have outlawed the practice. For example, since Canada removed the death penalty in the 1970s, it has witnessed a reduction in the murder rate. In the United States, an evaluation of the benefits of death penalty in preventing crime showed little deterrent value. A majority of executions happen in the Southern states yet they record the highest homicide rates in the nation. These examples illustrate that the punishment doesn’t deter crime as supporters claim.  Further, experts in the criminology field state that there is no scientific proof that indicates serious crimes can be prevented through the death penalty. (Hochkammer, 2017). So, this body of evidence shows that deterrence of crime shouldn’t be a primary reason to promote using death penalty in various countries.
A second argument is the death penalty is degrading and inhumane. Capital offenders have indeed committed some brutal or cold-blooded crimes where victims have been maimed or decapitated. These actions usually show a lack of conscience or morality on the part of the perpetrators. So, it’s easy to reason that the offender deserves the same inhumane treatment as an act of vengeance. However, in many of these executions like when injecting lethal substances, hanging, or shooting the convicted felons go through severe suffering before death. This practice goes against the laws stipulated under the human rights watch that advocates against inhumane and degrading treatment. The practice perpetuates violence and it doesn’t alleviate the victim’s family from pain. It’s like saying that rape is the best punishment for rapists. Justice is better served criminal endures the ignominy of being locked in prison so they can regret their horrific actions. The death penalty doesn’t give murderers the time...