The death penalty should be abolished, because it cheapens the value of human life and legitimizes the taking of it. Any death diminishes society. There are few benefits to executing someone. Instead, it causes a lot of harm, and produces few benefits. This is a big reason why the death penalty should be abolished. However, it is still a hot topic of debate.
Modern nation states have increased their permanent penitential institutions and standing police forces to enforce the law, but they haven’t abolished the death penalty. They argue that the punishment is justified by rational choice theory and is a form of deterrence. Yet many prominent figures have called for its outlawship. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) both call for the abolition of capital punishment. These organizations argue that capital punishment is incompatible with human dignity and violates the right to life.
While public opinion is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for the abolition of the death penalty, it is not the major hindrance. It doesn’t mean that majority support for capital punishment is a good thing. Past majorities of countries have supported capital punishment but then vigorously condemned it later. The most difficult part is getting leading figures to recognize that the death penalty is incompatible with the value of human life and dignity. Moreover, the death penalty is related to the desire to prevent crime and there are more effective ways of preventing crime.
It’s important to remember that the death penalty serves three purposes: it deters serious crimes, it prevents criminals from committing further crimes, and it provides justice for victims’ families. It’s also a bargaining chip that authorities can use when investigating a crime. If a murderer is mentally unstable, there’s no need to put him to death. The death penalty is a legitimate bargaining chip when dealing with the authorities investigating the crime.
Regardless of the crime committed, the death penalty is unacceptable. It undermines human dignity and inviolability of life. It also lacks a deterrent effect. The United Nations General Assembly stated in 2004 that “there is no conclusive evidence” that the death penalty works as a deterrent. While it might be a bargaining chip, it is an ineffective way to punish a murder.
As with all punishments, the death penalty is arbitrary and should never be used against innocent people. It also violates the right to life, as the execution of a person is not the best form of justice. In addition, the death penalty causes a lot of suffering for the victim’s family. As a result, if a murder is committed by a racist, the murderer should be punished with the death penalty.
The death penalty is an effective deterrent in many countries. It also prevents criminals from committing further crimes. Furthermore, the death penalty is an alternative to life imprisonment. If a murder is committed against a minority, the death penalty can be used against minors. If the crime is against a minority, the death sentence is the least effective punishment. The state should be able to decide whether to use the death penalty.
The death penalty is not the only reason to outlaw it. The death penalty is an old-fashioned solution that disproportionately affects the poor and racial groups. It also causes the victim’s family members to suffer. But should the killing be banned? That’s an entirely different issue. If the death penalty is abolished, the victims’ families would have no choice but to live with the guilt of the perpetrators.
The death penalty has three main purposes. It deters the worst criminals from committing more crimes. It ensures justice for the victims’ families. It is also a deterrent for the worst criminals. The death penalty is a necessary tool to punish terrorism. There are other reasons for the death penalty to be outlawed. It can help police in investigating a crime. When it is executed, it is more effective than a mere prisoner.