Inappropriateness Of The Death Sentence Thesis Statement

The Inappropriateness of the Death Sentence Thesis Statement

The death penalty, as practiced in some societies in the world, has had its positive aspects and negative aspects and my stand are that it should be abolished in any democratic state that seeks to ensure justice for both the victims of crime and the offenders.

The death sentence is against the bible and other religious guidelines. Religious laws quoted in religious texts prohibit the execution of a man altogether, emphasizing the sanctity of human life. The Ten Commandments, particularly in Deuteronomy, prohibit killing, and this principle is supported across many religious traditions, which see human life as sacred and beyond human jurisdiction to take (Goldman, 2017). These teachings argue that only God has the authority to terminate human life, advocating for alternative methods of justice that promote reform rather than punishment through death. Moreover, all current methods of execution, such as firing, poisoning, electrocution, and hanging, are inherently brutal, causing immense pain and suffering, which violates the notions of human dignity and rights.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of the death penalty in deterring crime is highly questionable. Empirical studies suggest that capital punishment does not reduce the incidence of serious crimes like murder. Countries that have retained the death penalty often record higher rates of violent crimes compared to abolitionist countries (Mathias, 2013). This indicates that the death sentence may escalate violence rather than suppress it. Additionally, the process of executing criminals exposes societal flaws, including the normalization of violence, which can influence impressionable young individuals. Observing state-sanctioned killing potentially fosters a culture of respect for violence and undermines societal moral fabric. The death penalty also risks executing innocent individuals. Due to flaws in judicial systems—such as inadequate defense, mistaken identity, or flawed evidence—there have been instances where innocent people were wrongly sentenced to death. These errors are irreversible, leading to tragic miscarriages of justice (Sarat et al., 2017). For example, cases in countries with high reliance on the death penalty have revealed wrongful executions based on flawed evidence or judicial errors, highlighting the profound risks of such irreversible punishment.

Political misuse of the death penalty further complicates its legitimacy. Authoritarian regimes in some Middle Eastern countries have exploited capital punishment to eliminate political opponents and suppress dissent, thereby undermining the concept of justice (Sarat et al., 2017). This misuse not only threatens human rights but also erodes public trust in the justice system. It is crucial to recognize that the death penalty disproportionately affects marginalized and economically disadvantaged groups, who often lack adequate legal representation. These groups are more vulnerable to wrongful convictions, and their poverty-stricken defenses increase the likelihood of unjust sentences, including wrongful executions (Goldman, 2017).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the death penalty is inherently incompatible with modern principles of justice, human rights, and morality. Its basis violates religious teachings rooted in the sanctity of life, fails to serve as an effective deterrent to crime, and poses significant risks of irreparable miscarriage of justice. The potential for wrongful executions, political abuse, and societal endorsement of violence necessitates its abolition. Instead, emphasis should be placed on reformative justice practices that uphold human dignity and promote genuine societal safety. The abolition of the death penalty aligns with the broader objectives of fostering a humane and just society that values life and human rights above retribution.

References

• Goldman, E. (2017). Anarchism: What it really stands for. In Anarchism as Political Philosophy (pp. 34-49). Routledge.
• Mathias, M. D. (2013). The sacralization of the individual: Human rights and the abolition of the death penalty. American Journal of Sociology, 118(5), 1241-1283.
• Sarat, A., Kermes, R., Cambra, H., Curran, A., Kiley, M., & Pant, K. (2017). The Rhetoric of Abolition: Continuity and Change in the Struggle Against America's Death Penalty. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 107(4), 659-711.
• Amnesty International. (2020). Death Sentences and Executions 2020. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/
• Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2015). The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective. Oxford University Press.
• Kennedy, R. G. (2010). Justice and the Death Penalty: An Examination of Morality and Public Policy. Harvard University Press.
• Radelet, M., & Akers, R. (2019). How Deterrence Works and Does Not Work. Crime & Justice, 48(1), 105-137.
• Streib, V. L. (2018). The Death Penalty in the United States. In The Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law (pp. 361-376). Routledge.
• Walker, J. L. (2016). Torture and the Death Penalty: Is There a Moral Difference? Ethics & International Affairs, 30(4), 415-429.
• Zimring, F. E. (2018). The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment. Oxford University Press.