Is the Death Penalty an Effective Crime, and Should it be Upheld?

Is the Death Penalty an Effective Crime, and Should it be Upheld?
60 percent of adult Americans support the death penalty for murderers, including 27 percent who strongly support it (Most Americans Favor the Death Penalty Despite Concerns About Its Administration, 2021). A particular view, according to Ichinose, is that whatever you do to another must be done unto you, equating capital punishment to fairness, and believed to be a form of retribution. This argument states that where a perpetrator has committed heinous crimes against an innocent individual and gets equal consequences; as a result, it brings satisfaction to the families of the victim and consoles them. However, morality is questioned when the behavior sought to be suppressed is legitimized. According to Shirley & Gelman p, 16 significant contentions opposing the death penalty cite its inhumaneness, lack of the desired deterrent effect, and lack of moral order. In hindsight, capital punishment varies according to demographics, political ideologies, and the declaration of human rights. Since the death sentence does not serve as an effective deterrence against crime, it should be abolished.
The first reason why capital punishment should be eliminated is that everyone has the fundamental right to life. No one has the right to take the other's life, regardless of whatever crime the individual has committed. Steiker p, 246 contends that black people are more likely to be subjected to extreme executions compared to whites. Capital punishment undermines human decency, which is inborn in every person. The death penalty does not deter crime. According to Chan et al., p, 3 capital punishment approval has greatly reduced over the years. Statistically, regions that have abolished the death penalty have recorded significantly lower murder rates and egregious crimes. It is essential to realize that the death penalty is an infringement of the Eighth Amendment, which safeguards criminals from the barbaric act of capital punishment. With extensive research, there is no convincing proof that the death penalty is a crime deterrent.
Additionally, the death penalty increases the possibility of wrongful execution of the innocent, which is another reason why it should be abolished. The death penalty gives the authorities leeway to subject individuals to it even without sufficient proof of wrongdoing. According to Azamjonovich p, 1879 an innocent person subjected to this treatment will be in mental anguish, and once the individual is executed, it is irreversible. The authorities have failed in conducting proper investigations, thus having the innocent suffer for their mistakes. This lack of work ethic is unacceptable. At least 187 individuals who had previously been sentenced to death in the United States and were on death row but were later exonerated have been recognized by the Death Penalty Information Center. The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) published a study in February 2021 stating that exonerated death-row convicts had been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death in 118 counties across 29 other states.
In addition, the death penalty primarily affects people from minority communities, mainly African Americans and Latinos, compared to Caucasians. According to Steiker & Steiker p, 251 this discrimination proves that the justice system is racially biased and is constantly profiling people considered minorities. This increasing racial bias makes the individuals affected by this situation more daring and bolder. These individuals will not hold back in committing capital felonies because they know the kind of treatment that awaits them once in custody. Whether they are dangerous or not. In some nations, a death penalty is a power tool, not fairness. Various governments worldwide use capital punishment to threaten citizens and take life unlawfully. According to Xiong et al., In Brazil, offenses like profanity, infidelity, robbery, and drug dealing have been subject to capital punishment. These governments want to be in control. Using capital punishment for subjective reasons, authorities determine what is unacceptable in society and the appropriate sentence. It makes residents unfortunate and disregards their fundamental liberties. Citizens have been subjected to living in fear because they dread that government could violate their human rights. 
Furthermore, the dependence on execution drugs is costly for the state. Because the death penalty has received a high rejection from the public, manufacturers refuse to sell them. In effect, it is expensive to acquire these drugs, making it difficult for the states to use the accepted and approved capital punishment drugs. Due to the scarcity, these states are facing increased series of failed executions making citizens pay more for those on death row to be executed less brutally. In addition, the victims of these failed executions are subjected to extreme agony, distress, and unfathomable trauma. Studies show time and time again that capital punishment is more costly than other types of punishment. The death penalty is far more expensive than a system that uses life without parole sentences as an alternative punishment (Center par, 2). The high expense of the death penalty may be attributed to several factors, including the need for more attorneys and specialists on both sides of the case, the lengthier trials and appeals necessary when a person's life is at stake, and the relative rarity of executions.
           Moreover, the death penalty act as a deterrence against crime. States that do not have capital punishment implemented; experience lower murder and other crime rates compared to states with the death penalty in effect. According to Boateng & Dzordzormenyoh, a petty offender is imprisoned to avoid and reduce their crime spree, and in the same fashion, murderers need to be executed to keep them from committing these heinous crimes. It offers a permanent solution and helps prevent the possibility of similar crimes in the future.
Additionally, any serious discussion of the death penalty must also consider that society is now polarized. Although the death penalty may be used to target political opponents and particular socioeconomic groups, this shows that it can be misused. The death penalty for murderers creates a climate that encourages more murders to be committed. The death penalty and murder are not opposites but "Twins" in this research and observation context. Assuming governments are obligated to defend human life, this argument assumes the death sentence signifies governmental hostility. Put another way, if a state applies the death sentence for murder, it will abuse the human right it is intended to defend. The death penalty should be avoided since it is both irrevocable and conclusive. Humans naturally tend to make errors, but the legal system is not included in this model.
Finally, to execute criminals is an ineffective strategy since it robs them of both their life and their innate dignity. A fundamental human right, the right to one's life, is universally regarded as one of the most basic. The death penalty prevents those who have been sentenced to death from living their lives according to their original plans. Even individuals condemned to death are supposed to have their rights protected by the law. According to Chalfin & McCrary p 12, those in charge of enforcing the law are expected to save the lives of all citizens, regardless of their background or previous actions. A person's life and dignity are taken away when condemned to death since the government decides when they will die. Notably, the government should be an entity that promotes human life and dignity rather than legitimizing the killing of human...