The Death Penalty is not the Solution
Courts and Judicial Processes
CJ 4044 Ol1
The death penalty has been present in society, in one way or another for nearly if human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; as it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another human, should also be killed. Nonetheless, in consideration of recent research into ethics, criminology, and the justice system, the time has come for the justice system to re-examine the ageless paradigm of revenge. Capital punishment is the tradition in which an offender is executed in accordance with judicial practice when they are convicted of committing a capital crime. A capital crime is defined as the crime that is so atrocious that the offender be sentenced to their death. This may be done as an act of retribution, to ensure that the individual cannot commit any future crimes, and/or as a deterrent for other potential criminals. This practice has been extremely controversial and is heavily debated upon around the world. Supporters of the death penalty argue that a serious crime deserves an equally serious punishment—such as death, while opponents argue that capital punishment is revenge rather than punishment. Most nations have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, however, the United States is one of few industrialized countries that continues to employ the death penalty.
Few issues in criminal justice are as controversial as the death penalty. For those who support the death penalty, the execution of killers makes complete sense. It is an “eye for an eye”. Death penalty supporters frequently affirm that executions will prevent these malicious criminals from committing barbaric crimes again, while also preventing individuals who might contemplate committing appalling crimes from doing so. In addition, many death penalty supporters simply believe that people who commit capital crimes deserve to die, and that they have earned their ignominious fate. However, in a just society, the greatest penalty received by an offender should be incarceration for life without the possibility of parole. This penalty, if executed correctly, would protect society from criminals just as effectively as the death penalty. Advocates for the death penalty often claim that certain criminals are an extreme danger to those around them, and should be killed to protect the public. While this argument makes sense, carefully implemented life imprisonment garners the same results. If a violent prisoner is kept in a maximum-security prison in a scheduled location, their ability to directly harm society disappears.
Those who oppose the death penalty view this issue entirely different. Many opponents share the belief that it makes very little sense to kill an offender. Perpetrators of such horrible crimes can be dealt with more effectively by other means such as life imprisonment without parole. The death penalty is hypocritical in ...