Can Capital Punishment be justified in today s world

Can Capital Punishment be justified in today’s world?

Capital punishment, which refers to the act of sentencing a convict to death, has been in existence as long as there has been crime and laws. The death penalty serves as the ultimate punishment a state can impose on an individual, and is traditionally reserved for crimes that are particularly serious and heinous, such as murder, rape or treason.

However, in today’s world where there is increased emphasis on justice, liberty and individual rights, it is my opinion that the death penalty is no longer justified because it is both principally unsound and unfeasible as a matter of practice.

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
Such are the exact words enscribed on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was established by United Nations General Assembly. It is shocking then, that many of the countries that practice capital punishment are the same countries that played a central role in drafting this article. The death penalty is an outright violation of an individual’s liberties and right to live because it involves the state forcibly terminating and individual’s life against his free will. Such a practice of state-sanctioned murder is also unjustified and unprincipled because it violates the sanctity of life. The state played no part in the creation of an individual’s life, how then can it be allowed to power to decide on when and how it should be terminated?

Some proponents of capital punishment believe that the death penalty is justified because it is a form of retributive justice, where the criminal deserves to die because he has committed an equally horrendous act such as murder or rape. In my opinion, the concept of “retributive punishment” is merely a euphemism for the primal desire of revenge. Two wrongs does not make a right – executing the offender will not revive the victim, nor will it benefit society in any way. Individuals seeking to dish out “retributive justice”, often the family and close relatives of victims, merely wants to satisfy their desire for revenge.

Capital punishment is also unjustified due to the fallibility and inherent biaseness present in the judicial system. In the judicial system, an individual can be sentenced to death based on the decision of a judge or a jury. However, being a system that is depends on human judgment and discretion, the judicial system can never be infallible. This is because every single person, regardless of their character or moral strength, is susceptible to biaseness, prejudices and misjudgments. Very often, an individual may not even be aware of his or her own biaseness and inclinations. Judges and jurors are no different – although they are presumably individuals who possess exceptional integrity character, at the end of the day, they are ultimately still human and are still fallible to our common afflictions of being prejudiced and biased. Studies in America has shown that African American convicts are 3 times as likely to be sentenced to death to their counterparts of other races and that prosecutors were more likely to seek a death sentence when the race of the homicide victims are white. Because of the fallibility of the judicial system, there is always a risk of innocent individuals being sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit. In such situations, the irreversible nature of the death penalty makes it impossible to restore justice, because a life, once taken away, can never be restored. It is towards this end that I believe the death penalty should be abolished – every innocent life lost is one too many, and if such an imperfect form of punishment is unable to avoid such a risk, it should arguably be abolished.

From another perspective, the death penalty is also unjustified because of its inhumane nature. On July 2014, Clayton Lockett, an inmate on death penalty, took 43 minutes to die after a failed execution attempt by the Oklahama State Prison. During the agonizing 43 minutes, Lockett writhed and convulsed in apparent agony, even rising on an occasion to speak of the intense pain. While some may argue that under ‘normal circumstances’, the individual would not have felt anything because he would be unconscious, the very fact that such an incident has not only happened once, but at least 3 times in the past year shows that such incidents are not isolated anomalies. Furthermore, even if the actual execution proceeds as planned, the months and years leading up to it is also arguably a form of psychological torture. Due to the inefficiency of the state prison systems, hundreds of inmates are still pending on the execution lists. These inmates live in constant fear and uncertainty; not knowing which day would be their last. The inhumanity of such a form psychological torture, more than anything else, should be a reason why compassionate human beings should call for the abolishment of capital punishment.

Last but not least, many proponents of capital punishment also cite its ability to deter future crime as a reason to continue its practice. However, no significant research or evidence has been produced to justify such a claim. In this instance where the state is actively terminating the life of an individual, the onus should rest on the state to prove that the justification of deterrence is valid. But studies done so far have all failed to show any causation or even correlation between the capital punishment and crime rates. In fact, in Western European countries where the death penalty has been abolished, crime rates have been consistently on the decline for more than three decades.

400 years ago, the public trials and executions of ‘Witches’ were prevalent and widely accepted as integral part of life. Proponents of the trials similarly justified these actions using the arguments of retributive justice and deterrence. Looking back, we cannot help but be astounded at the foolishness and absurdity of such barbaric actions. Capital punishment is the same – as we enter a new age of enlightenment and awareness of individual rights, I contend that this ancient practice should be left where it best belongs – in the past as history.