With death penalty, criminals are less inclined to kill a person while committing a crime simply because they know that in case they are taken to court, the judge would sentence them to death. Therefore, when engaged in criminal acts, people will try as much as possible not to kill anyone. However, that would not necessarily mean that these individuals cannot kill—but for the fact that there is a death sentence in place for any individual who commits such a felony, then they would do anything possible to prevent any chances to take them to the extent of killing, raping, or even committing treason. Because of the law, they would fear death themselves, which would be the ultimate punishment if they commit crimes.
The death penalty has not completely eradicated capital offences in the countries it is practiced, but surely, it has reduced the number of innocent victims unlawfully. Bundy’s is a good example of a person who was charged with the crime of killing ten people, and for that reason, sentenced to death. Bundy and his lawyer spent nine years trying to remove Bundy’s York of being sentenced to death. Bundy’s tried to defend himself that it was pornography that lead him to committing the crime arguing that it caused his uncontrollable high libido, which made him to view women as objects and not people. His second attempt was to tell the police where the bodies of the victims he had killed were in pursuit for life in imprisonment without bail (Franck &Nyam, 2003), but all his attempts failed. This shows that Bundy feared death, which is a good warning against capital criminals. The death penalty also proves to be the fairest way of treating capital crimes especially murder and rape.
Some people may argue that no one has the power or authority to punish anymore through death. I agree, but does that same criminal have the authority to take the life of another person? That is not true at all! With this being the case, it would be unlawful and unjust to release that same criminal to the public after 10 to 40 years because no one is absolutely sure if the person will not kill or rape another person after he or she is released from prison, since nobody knows why the criminal committed the felony at hand, be it murder or rape. Bundy killed ten innocent victims just for the pleasure of killing. If such a person were to be spared and was to be imprisoned and release after around 50 years despite his stay in prison, no one would be sure he would have actually reformed. Therefore, the best sentence for that kind of person is death. The other option would be sentencing Bundy to life in prison. He would maybe become a treat to his fellow inmates since nobody could tell whether his thrill to kill could not force his not kill or attempt the same on his fellow inmates.
Death penalty also offers some sense of justice to the friends and relatives of the person who has been killed. The feeling of losing a loved one is very hurting taking into consideration that it is a sudden death caused by a selfish victim (Franck &Nyam, 2003). This deep emptiness caused by the loss of a loved one cannot be replaced at all, but if the murderer is sentenced to death, it can act as a relief to the relatives. It would be so hurting to see a person who murdered one of your family members walks freely or even the thought of knowing that the victim is still alive. This also poses a threat to the family members of whom one of them was murdered because the criminal may want to revenge on the remaining relatives for reporting them to the authority.
At time the courts pardons those who have committed capital felonies, such as murder or rape, and instead of giving them a death penalty, the judge sentences them to life in prison sentence. Although such kind of punishment may be justified legally and believed enough in some regions, some people may view this as a form of injustice since their law would be stating that such crimes are punishable by death. In such circumstances, the offended people would be unsatisfied and lose trust in their judicial system. Accordingly, some of the offended feel that they can also get away with such crimes (Franck &Nyam, 2003), which leads to increase in similar crimes.
Every person agrees that crime is bad, especially when it involves killing or raping. Therefore, we should all stand firm and go by the saying, “an eye for an eye.” In other words, if you kill, the same should be done to you. Others may try to exclude rape arguing that it does not deserve a death penalty, but imagine a fully-grown person raping a minor, a child of a few months or barely a few years. Obviously, this takes away the innocence of the victim and many victims that undergo rape sometimes are unable to live confidently, while others opt to commit suicide as others end up hurting themselves or are unable to trust anyone. This especially affects female victims—a female victim becomes hostile to the male gender just because of this one person who raped her. Simply put, the criminal has destroyed the future of the innocent victim onward, thus, according to Franck and Nyam (2003), it would be unfair and unjust to forgive such a criminal.
Death penalties reduce the number of inmates in the prison. In our world today, immorality is increasing every day as crimes such murder and rape are almost turning out to be common crimes. In the year 2012 alone, approximately 1500 victims were reported were reported to authorities. This number has increased over the past two years. In some instances, some homicide cases remain unsolved, while other criminals are never found or identified. For those who are found and proven guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, they continually add to the number of inmates in the prison, which is costly to the government. Imprisonment may not be a solution because when released, some criminals commit crimes regularly, hence, they are in and out or jails, which is again costly (Franck &Nyam, 2003).
When in jail, offenders meet other hardcore criminals who continually influence them negatively they finally become hardcore themselves. To prevent this, all criminals who have murdered, raped, or committed treason should all be charged and given a death penalty. This will benefit the state in that less money will be used to maintain jails and the criminals in prison, thus saving taxpayers money and directing it to more important issues like education. Secondly it will prevent in the moral decay of the society, which is mainly the negative influence caused by the repeating criminals. Any person found to have committed a capital offence should not be spared as long as there is concrete evidence—the execution should be immediately done without allowing time for chances to repeat the crime. We should all focus on the benefits of death penalty instead of the reproaches. Death penalties act as a form of regulating crime in a country. It saves a lot of task payers’ money and it delivers a feel of justice to those who have been affected directly.
References
Agrawal, Ashima. The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished. 09 04 2013. http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/04/death-penalty-should-be-abolished. 09 07 2013.
Hans Göran Franck, Klas Nyman. The Barbaric Punishment: Abolishing the Death Penalty. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Copyright, 2003.
listverse.com. 5 Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty. 01 06 2013. http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/5-arguments-for-and-against-the-death-penalty/. 09 07 2013.
penalty.org, death. Facts. 31 03 2009. http://www.deathpenalty.org/section.php?id=13. 09 07 2013.
Why Deathe Penalty Should Be Abolished. 01 07 2013. http://www.icomdp.org/. 09 07 2013.
mnhamedjazim
death_penalty.docx
0
