Research on the Death Penalty and Its Appropriateness

Research on the Death Penalty and its Appropriateness

        The use of death penalty, or capital punishment dates back to 18th century before the Common Era. In the code of King Hammurabi, the oldest and the first form of constitution of human history, 25 different crimes that should be punished with death are scripted. Ever since human society was formed, capital punishments have been used as methods to bring about an order. Among types of punishment, the death penalty is considered to be the harshest penalization for which it is usually reserved to those who murdered. As it is written in the code of King Hammurabi, the notion of “eye for an eye” came from the belief that someone who took other’s lives must also be taken his own. Such concept structures the today’s law and order system despite in fact it has become much complicated that an act of murder does not always result in getting death penalty. Some states have even abolished the death penalty. Currently, there are 32 states in which death penalty is legal and 18 states that have abolished it in the United States (Death Penalty Information Center). Some worries that even if the convict is later found not guilty, it is irrevocable to bring back his or her life. It is certainly true that there is no way to reverse the execution after it is conducted. However, if an innocent person is convicted and put on a death sentence, this is a limitation to the prosecution and justice system, not a limitation to the death penalty. The death penalty is given after numbers of trials and thorough contemplation. Such mistake can be amended by upgrading the justice system that can filter out inadequate legal representation and prosecutorial misconduct, however, not by elimination of the death penalty because it has more pros by keeping it. Although law systems in most of states do not easily sentence death penalty on simple issues these days, the prevalence of death penalty has been standing as an indomitable will as a symbol of the law and order to prevent tragic crimes from those who promote disorder in society. Therefore, even at a time like this that human rights is the cardinal virtue and the dignity of man is appreciated and defended, I believe the death penalty must not be forbidden but promoted even more for those who live within the law and order peacefully.

        One of the various reasons for the death penalty to be allowed is that it works as a deterrence from horrible crimes. Those who do not agree with the capital punishment often say that the death penalty does not influence on deterring crimes that “in many countries, governments justify the use of the death penalty, claiming it deters crime. But there is no evidence that it is any more effective in reducing crime than other harsh punishments” (Amnesty International). It seems to be true by looking at the statistical data showing that the murder rate is generally high in death penalty states whereas it is generally low in non-death penalty states (Federal Bureau of Investigation). However, thinking in a different way, this statistical data shows why such states still strongly support for death penalty because of the high murder rate. Also, by watching at the data people might understand the situation in a way that the death penalty does not really have an effect of deterrence, however, this only makes people to hypothesize about the relationship between murder rate and death penalty. If one wants to test such hypothesis, he or she must conduct a survey whether it would work as a deterrence or not. If this argument is not as persuasive because of not significant proof on the statistical data for the death penalty as a deterrence, here is a quotation from a lawsuit case held in the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia by Justice Stewart in 1975: “Although some of the studies suggest that the death penalty may not function as a significantly greater deterrent than lesser penalties, there is no convincing empirical evidence supporting or refuting this view” (Gregg v. Georgia). On Research Findings from Public Opinion Survey on Capital Punishment conducted in 2003, Korea, the survey result shows that 71.1% of respondents with the sample size of 1,064 expected that the death penalty has a deterrence effect of crimes (National Human Rights Commission of Korea). As long as 71.1% of respondents believe that the death penalty deters crimes, it means that they are aware of the consequence of a horrible crime and it is unlikely for them to risk his or her life from doing a serious crime while they know what is coming next. If the statistical data is only a hypothesis and the survey data is a fact and proves how dependent people are on the death penalty for crimes to be deterred, what would be the reasonable choice?

        Some people who believe death penalty should be abolished say that government does not have authority to take one’s life and it is morally wrong. According to Gallup’s poll on death penalty held on October 2014, among the 33 percent of opposed on the death penalty and among the respondents with the opposing view, 40 percent responded that the reason why they oppose is because it is just wrong to take a life. For this logic to be true, those who believe in this should also oppose military service because it is just wrong to take life which is morally wrong. Moreover, the United States should also disband its military even if China and Russia are growing military power and although such can be a threat to us. The reason that the military exists is to keep the peace. In Thomas Schelling’s book on deterrence, it is argued that military strategy was “now equally, if not more, the art of coercion, of intimidation and deterrence” (Schelling, 34). When we are attacked by other nation, we fight back. Such international war can be compared to that of individuals. Just like the invasion of foreign country is illegal anyhow, infringement of individual’s property is illegal and such action needs to be punished especially when what is infringed is one’s precious life. It is hypocritical to claim dissents on the death penalty where international violence is prevalent and easily seen anywhere.

        Other opposing claims suggest that the death penalty is a violation of human rights. But before they talk about the human rights of the convicts, it is important to remind that those convicts who are sentenced to death have already abandoned someone else’s human rights. This is a quotation from a speech by John Stuart Mill:

And we may imagine somebody asking how we can teach people not to inflict suffering by ourselves inflicting it? But to this I should answer – all of us would answer – that to deter by suffering from inflicting suffering is not only possible, but the very purpose of penal justice. Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable is it to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself, and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall.