Abolition of Death Penalty, Article Review Example

Although nature by itself delivers justice according to its own laws, mankind is the only life form which has developed itself into an intricate social system and decides by itself what is just or right. Animals do kill, and so do some carnivorous plants, but never is it a deliberate and pre planned action as is the ‘death penalty’ which is a horrific invention of the human race alone. No doubt some social crimes are so heinous that nothing short of execution seems as the only punishment, but to believe that such an action would discourage future crimes seems foolish when similar crimes keep occurring incessantly and continuously in all societies of the world despite the death sentence looming large in front of a potential criminal. It is therefore necessary to come up with some mechanism which prevents rather than cures the maladies afflicting human society.

Modern day crimes are complicated due to tremendous developments in technology, the fast changing social structure in various parts of the world and overpopulation which limits access to economic, social and material resources. Improbable goals have been set up for the future generations which are supposed to survive in tune with the current demands of the global society in which you either perform or perish. Attaining pre defined and acceptable qualifications are the license to jobs, economic stability and freedom. When one fails to achieve this he or she is left to fend for oneself and life becomes difficult. This enables the society to establish itself in a hierarchical fashion which separates rich from the poor, the have’s from the have-nots’. How can then we confine judgment to a mere agreement to pre defined strictures and regulations which suit the fancy of certain privileged individuals? Death penalty, which is the most repugnant ills prevalent in modern society, should therefore be done away with, as it is an inhuman way of administering justice. The first and foremost effort should be towards directing society to follow ways and means which discourage criminal intentions. Whenever we encounter crime of serious nature, there are numerous other methods like social boycott and life imprisonment by which punishment can be administered. To abolish or keep the death penalty has been a ravaging debate for a long time. The United States of America continues using capital punishment, although it has been abolished in many other civilized and industrialized countries of the world. Proponents of capital punishment feel that it is the ultimate deterrent to crime. It serves an example for the potential criminals in society to stay away from unlawful activities. People who act like animals should be prepared to face the same fate as they have afflicted on their victims. This does not bring back the victim to life, but serves as a stabilizing factor in society where the relatives and friends of the victim are provided some consolation. It is but human nature to avenge any misdemeanor and the society shares the responsibility by framing and enforcing rules and laws which are in accordance with the accepted norms of society. With the burgeoning population and the increasing cosmopolitan structure of the society certain norms should be standardized which remain common guiding principles to be followed in mutual agreement by everybody. In the absence of such laws, it would be impossible to control and keep a check on the spread of crime in society. Heinous crimes like manslaughter and rape are scars on the face of civilized society which should not be left unpunished. Some people feel that if death penalty is abolished, psychopaths and criminals will have a free binge at the expense of innocent and peace loving people.

Edward I. Koch, Mayor of New York from 1978 to 1979 was a vehement supporter of capital punishment (Bruck, 1985). Koch believed that sanctity and significance of life is reaffirmed when criminals like Joseph Carl Shaw, who was proved guilty of killing innocent children was administered the death penalty in South Carolina. He finds it preposterous when the killer lectured on the wrongs of killing when faced with the death sentence. According to Koch’s own words “It is a curiosity of modern life that we find ourselves being lectured on morality by cold-blooded killers”. He feels that not administering the death penalty to a proven guilty murderer is grave injustice to the victim. Justice in a civilized society should be appropriate and balanced enough to neutralize the intensity of the committed crime. Otherwise the concept of justice would acquire meaninglessness. He feels that any other form of punishment in response to murder would be inadequate. Koch even argues the Biblical plea made by certain sections of society who cite the ‘Thou Shalt not Kill’, the sixth of the Ten Commandments as reason enough to abolish the death sentence by drawing their attention to the original Hebrew version which reads as, “Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder”. Koch in his essay methodically answers and refutes the claims of people against the death penalty.

A few advocates of death penalty have a different opinion when the murderer is of young age. The majority public view is that juveniles should be spared from death penalty as they are too young to realize the gravity of their actions, deliberate or otherwise. When the opinion of two young students was sought on this matter by the New York Times magazine in 2001, they were of the view that youngsters are as guilty as adults if they indulge in such heinous acts as taking the life of another (Johnson & Welch, 2002). According to one, “I don’t believe that killers can be rehabilitated, even if they are young”. When these youngsters corresponded with death row inmates during a class on criminal justice system, they were disappointed by the lies the inmates told about the cases they were involved in to save their skin. The youngsters were of the opinion that a sixteen year old is wise enough to know the pros and cons of his deeds when he or she indulges in a crime as grave and horrible as murder. Capital punishment is therefore justified in such cases. They argue that young age can only be accepted as criteria for ignorance if the killers were as young as 4 to 5 years old when the mental development is less. According to them, “If a killer has the intellectual ability to understand that what he or she did was wrong, then that killer must pay with his or her life”.

When we consider the viewpoint of those in favor of abolition of the death penalty, some people are of the opinion that in modern civilization one must realize that it is not within the purview of a human being to make a decision for killing a fellow human being (Johnson & Welch, 2002). The authors express a strong viewpoint against the death penalty and its use against juvenile criminals. She reasons that as minors are not provided other legal privileges as voting rights, driving license, etc. they should not be measured by the same legal yardstick as the adults. According to her, “If 16 year olds cannot open bank accounts in their own names, why can they pay for crimes with their lives?” When they commit crimes they are not aware of the consequences of their actions and they lack the ability to visualize the effects of their actions. International treaties and opinions justify her viewpoint and juveniles the world over are usually administered lighter punishment instead of death sentence when found guilty of crimes punishable by death.

Sister Helen Prejean, a religious figure who has experience in counseling prisoners on the death row in Louisiana is very straightforward in her opinion when she states that “I would not want my death avenged-especially by government, which can’t be trusted to control its own bureaucrats or collect taxes equitably or fill a pothole, much less decide which of its citizens to kill” (Prejean, 2006). She cites various Biblical instances of justice which are actually not complied with full comprehension, rather with what seems convenient to the propagators of modern day justice in the world.

Conclusion

The abolition of death sentence must be supported as it has been proven that execution does not serve as a deterrent for future crime. Data analysis from governments using the death sentence and the others which don’t, suggests that the figures for crimes of gravity which call for punishment by execution was much lower in the countries which had done away with the death penalty. The overall cost for administering the death sentence was much more than that for life imprisonment. Death sentence is only an exercise in frustration by a society which fails to follow the established norms of freedom and social togetherness which is diminishing at a fast rate in the increasingly materialistic world.

Works Cited

Bruck, D. The Death Penalty, online article accessed March 14, 2010 at: http://www.faulkner.edu/admin/websites/cwarmack/bruck.pdf, 1985

Johnson, C & Welch, E, Should the Death Penalty Apply to Juveniles?, online article accessed March 15, 2010 at: http://www.sandi.net/depts/literacy/unitsofstudy/grade8/unit2/texts/death_penalty.pdf, 2002

Koch, E I, Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life, online article accessed March 15, 2010 at: http://faculty.mdc.edu/dmcguirk/ENC2106/kochdeathpenalty.htm, 1985

Prejean,  H.,  The Death of Innocents, Canterbury Press, Norwich, online book accessed March 15, 2010 at: http://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&id=6lE3cepvefUC&dq=Sister+Helen+Prejean&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=BiKbUKc6nk&sig=UNCoATe9P0GUGfd9k_GISig-jI0&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPP1,M1, 2006.