Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?
IRTS 7036 - Capital Punishment
University of Cincinnati
Introduction
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial
issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an
extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life
dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The
topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.
The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and
cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant
is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No
possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most
miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an
object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).
Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime
should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi
proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is
subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims.
The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its
effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay
on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).
It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before
proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter
10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital
punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in
proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is
adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a
hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).”
(Kant).
Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand,
retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18th century abolitionist Cesare De
Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it
gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves
commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole
world blind.”
This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only
propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death
sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that
hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.
It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient
hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react
humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and
unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social
justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting
democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better
compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.
In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment
etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking
wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement,
crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or
neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone
the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing
squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into
retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia
and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa
and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason,
rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers.
Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance
of redemption.
Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity
of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful
effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes
shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard
and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members
of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently
weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose
mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent
lives.
Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to
realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society.
Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic
ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly
should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such
punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other
law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing
social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological
treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human
life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would
remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be
able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members,
loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy
atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a
positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard
hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.
Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making
efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to
the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is
a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can
be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the
pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for
the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should
precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.
To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human
kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow
branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every
country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due
regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social
goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy
atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian
ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized?
The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.
