Arguments Against Capital Punishment

Similar to the death sentence, capital punishment refers to the execution of wrongdoers who have been found guilty of committing a capital crime or offense. Treason, genocide, and crimes against humanity are a few of these offenses. While the other states lack the death sentence, 31 states in the USA do.

Deterrence is a key justification for the death penalty, as it stops potential killers from killing by causing them to lose their lives. A response to deterrence, however, demonstrates that the method does not support the means. States that do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than those that do. Retribution is another argument for death penalty, justifying the situation when someone kills, justice is restored by replacing disturbed justice (Paternoster, Brame & Bacon, 2008). A rebuttal against retribution is that it is similar to revenge and society does not endorse life for a life.

Arguments against capital punishment include innocence, where the penalty is irrevocable and includes the risks of executing the innocent. Some investigations are marred with errors and may result to death of the innocent. However, rebuttals for innocence claim that there are no existing cases of executing the innocent with the availability of appeals and safeguards. Lastly, a counter-argument arises regarding discrimination and arbitrariness such as failure to eliminate worst offenders by selecting arbitrary groups using the criterion of irrational factors. These factors include race of victim, state of committing crime and defense counsel’s quality.

From opinion, equity, fairness, and justice must govern the co-existence of citizens. As a result of murders, people lose lifes and families grief and mourn while seeking justice. As a result, it is prudent to have capital punishment as a way of justifying justice.

Reference

Paternoster, R., Brame, R., & Bacon, S. (2008). The death penalty: America's experience with capital punishment. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.