Is the Death Penalty Effective?

Is the Death Penalty Effective?
Oniel Blair
10 October 2020
Is the Death Penalty Effective?
The death penalty is one of the controversial issues that people cannot see to agree. As of July 2020, the US supreme court has executed about 1516 people through the death penalty since 1976, some who were guilty and others that were innocent, and as of July 2020, about 60 people were waiting to be executed by the government and the military (Baumgartner et al., 2017). The death penalty is still being applied in many jurisdictions. A study by Baumgartner et al. (2017) concluded that about 4% of the people executed are likely to be innocent. Death is not reversible. Even if a person is proven to be innocent after their execution, nothing could be done since they are already dead, which would only leave their family and friends hurting that justice was not served (Yelderman et al., 2019). Whether the death penalty is significant has been controversial for a long time since some people think it should be one way to do justice, while others strongly disagree. For ethical reasons, the death penalty should be abolished since it is irreversible, ineffective, and mistakes also occur frequently during convictions.
The death penalty outweighs the advantages of other forms of execution, and social ethics do not support the death penalty. Death is perceived as one of the most inhumane ways to pass justice to people. Based on social ethics, capital punishment is an abuse of human rights, and it cannot be justified under all circumstances (Yelderman et al., 2019). The judiciary aims to promote justice in our society, but sentencing a person to death negates this value. The community believes in rehabilitating people who commit crimes but passing the death sentence means that this opportunity is not presented to the victim, making the matter an injustice since their human rights are not respected (Yelderman et al., 2019). If there were a remedy to death where one can be brought back to life after a while, probably even the anti-death penalty campaigners would agree to this form of sentencing. Killing a person for their mistakes is not justice, and it is irreversible. Death is irreversible, and nothing can be done to bring back the person to life if they are later on proved to be innocent and should, therefore, be abolished as a way of passing judgment. It is unjust that a person pays for a crime that they did not commit, and if he or she were in jail, it would have been as easy as letting them free, but with the death sentence, nothing can be done to ease the situation. According to Cholbi and Madva (2018), “black capital defendants are more likely to be subjected to execution than are those who murder members of other races” (p. 517). This means that the death penalty promotes racism, thus should be abolished since it encourages other negative things in society. It is illogical to solve a problem by creating another one, and this is what the death penalty does when they execute an innocent person, yet he or she cannot be brought back to life (Cholbi & Madva, 2018). After a dead person is declared innocent, his or her family and friends will seek justice under the basis of innocent murder, something that could have been avoided. On these grounds, anti-death penalty activists and human rights lobbyists continuously struggle to ensure that the death penalty is abolished in all countries.
Mistakes can arise, and the state will wrongfully execute an innocent person. The death penalty is ineffective since there are possibilities of wrong execution, where evidence suggesting they were innocent is found after being killed. Nonetheless, the person has already been killed for a mistake that they did not commit, and the irreversible nature of death means that there is nothing that could be done regardless of the victim’s innocence (Lozada, 2020). If the court had opted to rehabilitate the victim in jail, he or she would only have been set free, and although it would still be an injustice, at least there would have been a remedy. Over the years, we have witnessed people on the death row being exonerated, and were it not for the evidence that was found quickly; then it means that they would have been executed for a crime they did not commit (Plec, 2018). Human beings head the judicial system, and since human beings are to error, they could make a mistake when passing judgment and thus have the wrong person being executed. The justice system can be skewed, which results in unfair trials. The judges could be influenced by other factors such as bribes to favor a side during judgment, thus passing judgment that an innocent person should be executed. Judges can easily be bribed by the rich to judge that will put someone on the death penalty even without a mistake (Lozada, 2020). This means that a person dies because they do not have money to bribe the judges. This mostly happens when the person is being framed, and the people responsible are afraid the truth will come out, so they decide to have him or her executed legally. According to Lozada (2019), “You are treated better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent” (p. 92). This shows how much one’s wealth influences their judgment. Black Americans form the highest numbers of those presented on the death row due to the racial discrimination that happens in America. It is unfair that one is more likely to be sentenced to death just because of their skin color. Over the years, many people on death row have been released due to being innocent. The death sentence is not an effective way to ensure that society is safer and no more crime; thus, the government should use other ways to pass judgment.
The death penalty is ineffective and does not deter crime. The death sentence does not guarantee public safety and most law professionals agree that this sentence is one of the least effective ways to reduce violent crime (Acker, 2017). Crimes still occur even if the death penalty exists. There are better ways to reduce crime in society, including increasing police officers’ numbers, providing more job opportunities to people, and ensuring no drug and substance abuse. If the government opted for these options to make the community safer, fewer people would engage in criminal activities. Executing a death sentence only helps eliminate only one criminal, but other strategies would help more people disengage in these activities (Norris, 2019). There is no evidence to support that the death sentence is more effective than life imprisonment. Therefore, it proves that it should be eliminated as one of the sentences in the judicial system.
The death penalty can be used as a political tool and as a means of punishing opponents. The death sentence could sometimes be misused for selfish personal gains by politicians to ensure that their opponents are punished, and they serve as an example to others who might want to oppose their leadership (Bibi et al., 2019). Judges can easily be manipulated by politicians, especially using bribes to make the ruling in their favor and thus sentence a person to death despite their innocence. It is common for political leaders in Sudan, Iraq, and Pakistan to use the death sentence selfishly to publicly punish their opponents, thus preventing other people from opposing their leadership (Bibi et al., 2019). Leadership comes with a lot of power, and those in political positions can easily use the death sentence for selfish gains since they have the money to bribe. They can also easily talk to the heads of the judicial system since, in most cases, they select them for the positions (Toth, 2020). This means that the death penalty can be used against people with no power or money. It is ironic since the judicial system is supposed to ensure fairness and justice regardless of wealth, race, or position in the country.
The death penalty acts as an adequate punishment for murderers who forfeit their rights to life due to their actions. Some activists strongly support the death sentence and believe it’s one of the most effective ways to deal...