Should the Death Penalty Exist? Get the Answer in Our Essay Example

The death penalty is one of the sentences that have brought controversy across the globe. The punishment has caused endless debates on whether the sentence should exist or be abolished. The death penalty laws can be traced back to the late eighteenth century and during the era of King Hammurabi of Babylon (Van den Haag and John Phillips 8). The king had established twenty-five crimes whose consequences were the death penalty. It then spread to Britain and the rest of the world in the following two centuries. In contemporary society, the death penalty has been ratified in some countries while others still consider it draconian and inhumane (Van den Haag and John Phillips 16). The supporters of the death penalty argue that it is meant to be a lesson to the offender and the rest who might be intending to engage in a similar crime. Similarly, the pro-death penalty also claims that if a criminal kills, then the equivalent punishment is death implying that the crime fits the sentence. In my view, the death penalty should not exist because of various reasons against humanity.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The death sentence should not exist because it is against the most fundamental right of a human being. Every person has the right to life, and the death penalty will be a consensual way of denying people freedom (ProCon.Org 1). Despite the crimes committed, not one should be allowed to take the life of another person. Similarly, the ways used to kill the offender are always brutal and make them go through pain, for instance, lethal injection or electrocution (ProCon.Org 1). Additionally, the death penalty should not exist because it is an irreversible way of punishment if the case is the opposite and the guilty is not as charged then it will not be possible to bring the offender back to life (ProCon.Org 1). There are instances when the real offender confesses of their heinous acts such as murder and incase the death punishment had already been executed then it is not possible to reverse the decision.

The sentence does not reduce the rate of murder crime as intimated by the society. A majority of the nations that have passed the law of death sentence claim that when the penalty is applied people with similar intentions will withdraw and therefore leading to reduced rates of crimes. (ProCon.Org 2) It is important to note that there are no proven statistics which explain that the price of crime is correlated with a drop in murder cases experienced in a given society. Additionally, the death penalty should not exist because it brings emotional and financial problems to the offender. In fact, the person executed was a breadwinner, then the people who depended on him for provisions suffer (Hood and Carolyn 28). For instance, children who still depend on their parents for food, education, and shelter, among others. Besides, death brings emotional turmoil to the family of the deceased. Grief is a psychological process which no one desires, and in case it happens the pain the gap never gets filled (Hood and Carolyn 28). Furthermore, the cost of life is infinite compared to that of life imprisonment. In this case, growth over detention value should be chosen.

Moreover, the legal justice system is based on the basis of race; the aspect of slavery and ethnic injustice is still evident. Research indicates that a majority of the population which faces death sentences are the African Americans, which make up 40% of the total population in death rows (Van den Haag and John Phillips 16). Death penalty should therefore not exist as it is applied partially despite the impartial nature that is expected of American statutes. The criminal justice system should be reformed to ensure that such unfairness is eliminated.

On the contrary, the death penalty can be the only fair punishment to an offender who has taken the lives of other people. It is ironical to accord a killer a lifetime in prison while the families of the murdered people are dealing with irreplaceable loss and lifetime grief(Van den Haag and John Phillips 17). When murder is intentional, then it implies that the killer, by all means, wanted to kill and the only penalty that can be a fit to such crime is murder. Additionally, the death penalty should exist and be applied to deter criminal activities such as terrorism(Van den Haag and John Phillips 17). When terrorist is caught, it is only fair to give them a death sentence to hinder from engaging in more killings through terror attacks.

It is important to note that that death penalty is inhuman and should therefore not exist. Death sentences cannot be reversed, and once applied, life cannot be brought back in case the offender was not guilty as charged. The application of the death sentence is a violation of a fundamental human right, which is the right to life. When the law administers a death sentence, it will be infringing against the right to live. Executing a person is also not a guarantee that crime rates will be reduced as suggested by the supporters of the death penalty. There are no proven statistics that the application of death penalties has resulted in a reduction in crime rates. Future research needs to look into ways through which crime can be reduced without the use of the death sentence.

Works Cited

Hood, Roger, and Carolyn Hoyle. The death penalty: A worldwide perspective. OUP Oxford, 2015.

ProCon.Org. Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments: Should the death penalty be allowed? Retrieved from https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000

Van den Haag, Ernest, and John Phillips Conrad. The death penalty: A debate. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.