In the present world, capital punishment became a very controversial issue. Numerous researches were provided to highlight the whole situation and to make a final conclusion whether the death penalties should take place in the modern world or not (Garland et al 73). Capital punishments existed from the early history of the humankind. Murders, robberies, and offences were punished in many cases and one of the main kinds of punishment was the death sentence. In fact, the punishment for illegal actions can be provided with the torturing, maiming, custodial placement, death penalty, etc. All abovementioned punishments are provided only to prevent lawless actions in the future and to punish that particular person for his or her crime. Also, the type of punishment and its severity may vary due to several aspects: time period in the history, country, mentality, etc (Guernsey 9). Talking about providing the death penalty, retribution, deterrence, together with incapacitation make the strong basis for the acceptance and providing the capital punishment in the present world.
All disputes about the modern capital punishment divided people’s opinions into two groups, for and against it (Lane 35). Both groups have clear and reasonable thoughts towards death penalties (Mandery 228). In most cases, people standing against death penalties, name religious and moral reasons. At some point, they look at this issue from only this one perspective and their arguments mostly refer to the Bible and its citations (Burkhead 139). However, in most cases, these people do not take into account other aspects, for example economical. With the high possibility, this issue will remain controversial for a long period of time. Thus, reasons for providing the capital punishment should be researched more.
The law and the legislative system in general spent a lot of time determining the convenient punishments for provided violent actions. Some of the crime actions, such as different kinds of robbery, may not have an extremely strict sentence as a death penalty, and can be followed with giving a second chance to the prisoners in future. Other crimes, such as murder and assassination are irreversible. In other words, stolen material valuables can be recovered or fully replaced by equal thing by their cost, unlike the victim’s death. No other person can replace a close family member or a friend who had been murdered. If one particular person is not capable of considering the full value of people’s lives, than he or she definitely has to pay the price for the crime actions done. The price for it should only be considered and set by the Court and the legislative system in general.
Stand Point: Retribution
Every illegal action should be punished. Thus, the retribution implicates a punishment for a provided crime. Due to the severity of provided actions against other people or morality and the death sentence must not occur in all cases. Robbery is considered to be not an extremely serious violation of rules and the capital punishment should not take place in such cases. At the same time, serious crimes should always be followed with serious penalties. Murders may have different levels of severity and types: unintentional murder, assassination, mass murder, etc. The abovementioned list reflects only few types from the huge variety of killings and murders.
Different reasons can be named for such serious crime as a murder. Social background, mental health issues, drug and alcohol abuse, high level of testosterone are the main reasons for providing violent action towards another person or group of people. In fact, no human being has a right to decide if the other person should live or die. However, cases of murders always took place from the very beginning of a human history. Making such decision always affects the balance in both society and moral fields (Bedau, and Cassell 68). Knowing that some person committed a serious crime without a proper punishment for it always causes disturbance in masses.
From this perspective, one can say that the punishment should always be equal to the crime done. Thus, every case of the intentional murder should be followed by a death sentence. In most cases, murderers do not repent of their sins. Unlike unintentional murders, regular ones are always performed with a desire to kill and planning the whole process. Murder planning process may vary from few minutes to several days. Therefore, this person realizes the whole situation and the consequences it may cause.
Also, retribution can be observed from a religious perspective. As stated in the Bible, “eye for an eye” is the only right way to provide a severe punishment as a death penalty. Therefore, the justice for taking a life of a human being can be restored only with the death of a murderer. At some point, the death of a murderer will not bring into life a killed person and his or her family members always stay affected. At the same time, knowing that this particular killer has been punished and paid the full price for provided actions may bring realizing that with the his or her death there will be no more harm done to this victim and family in general. As stated above, under the system of law and moral values, cruel actions (for example raping or torturing) and murders must always be followed by the offender’s execution. Thus, with this kind of restoring justice, balance is also rehabilitated and this brings a nature closure to the whole situation.
Retribution can be unfairly confused with revenge. However, they imply different goals. Revenge strives only for making the offender suffer for own violent actions, and the whole idea is based on making him or her fully pay for done harm only from a moral perspective. On the other hand, retribution does not imply emotional background and is based only on the idea of restoring moral and social justice and balance.
Taking into account abovementioned, the severity of a provided crime and the punishment should always be proportional. Thus, if one person took such a precious thing as a life from another person, then he or she should pay the equal price to restore the natural balance of justice within a society.
Stand Point: Deterrence
Every case of convicted crime without proper punishment for it is a “green light” to other people for providing the same actions. Knowing that some human being committed a serious crime and was not punished by the legislative system and the society in general, makes other potential criminals think that they have rights to do the same without facing all consequences. Criminals can be potential and active, and the step for becoming an active offender is not as big as it may seem. Sitting behind bars does not make people think about the consequences after committing a crime (Banner 124). In fact, some people try to break the law for getting into prison and have a constant place to sleep and to get a daily food. Thus, a simple arrest will not fear a person away from providing some illegal actions. The main constraining factor from crime is a capital punishment is realizing that your life will be taken as a punishment for violent actions, helps to restrain from killing or providing illicit extremely violent actions. The visual example of a punishment is always better for keeping a person far from committing a crime.
Usually, people who are against the death penalty say that all criminals will be punished by the God’s will after death. Such approach is completely wrong in the first place. Moreover, not all people are religious and believe in God’s existence. With the huge variety of religions, beliefs and religious sects, every person has a great variety of religious ideas to follow. In fact, some sects teach own congregation how to kill and set the reason for that.
Many people believe in God, paradise, and hell. The existence of items from the abovementioned list is a very controversial issue as well. To some people, knowing that a person committed a serious crime against the humankind and is punished only after his or her death in a huge cauldron with some boiling substance in it is enough for considering justice restored in their minds. Such approach to the punishment in general implies a wrong idea. For the present day, the existence of such items as paradise and hell is not proved yet. Therefore, the punishment after one’s death is not proved at all, and implies nothing more than illusive context. Such abstract and indefinite punishments will not keep a person from committing a serious crime, like raping, torturing, or murdering. The punishment should always be demonstrative. Since, most people think usually with visual pictures from conscious, the demonstrative example must reduce providing violent actions among possible and active offenders and criminals. Thus, people see the direct strict punishment for provided violent actions visually, and most of them will think first if it is better to kill somebody or try to restrain own anger.
Even if, hell exists somewhere, the capital punishment will make the criminal pay for his or her sins a lot faster than waiting for the natural death. Moreover, many people live by the present day and do not think about future consequences and future in general. Thus, potential criminals, even knowing that in the future, they will face some certain punishment do not realize it. Thus, the punishment itself should always be provided shortly after committed crime. In such cases, other people will see the harm done, and the payment for it at the same time, and such approach should restrain violent thoughts. From this point of view, without violent thoughts there will be no violent actions provided (Latzer, and McCord 17).
The whole legislative system and laws have always been a restraining mechanism for people. However, some active or potential criminals are not serious about the decision of the court. By their opinion, sitting behind bars for few years and decades will not play a magnificent role in their lives. On the other hand, very few people want to die in accordance with someone’s decision, even if they made a wrong decision about the other person’s life. In such cases, simple knowing that one particular person killed or severely humiliated another person has been punished seriously and the punishment itself was completely proportional will definitely restrain other people from providing the same actions, or any action like those.
Taking into account all aforesaid, one can say that providing a death penalty is the only proper punishment for a serious crime. Also, the capital punishment should always be talked about as a reminder to other active or potential criminals. Since, other people always try to monitor the latest news, they will get proper information, for example for a murderer. At the same time, this information should be full, other people will know about causes of provided violent actions, about a victim or several victims, and about the punishment provided. In such cases, when people realize, that for serious crime actions the offender pays the price in the sum of own life, they all will think more than once if they are allowed to offend or murder other people. Thus, they will see that all pain they have done to their victims will come back to them as a death punishment.
Stand point: Incapacitation
The idea of incapacitation implies that a person committed a serious crime would not be able to do the same actions in future (International Debate Education Association 42). In most cases, if a person once decided to offend or kill somebody, he or she will do the same in the future with a high possibility. Moreover, staying in prisons for a long time brings even more severe damage to the mental health of all prisoners. With the social atmosphere, attitude, and the general relations between all prisoner mates, there is a high possibility for criminals to cultivate even more violent thoughts that may be reflected in rather cruel actions in the future. Sometimes, severe criminals who got the imprisonment for life sentence may create an outward appearance that they repent on their sins and completely changed their world view. Such criminals may even become a free person by the court order, therefore, the punishment should not be considered as the proper one, because even a life-time sentence is not proportional for the killing of another human being. With the common living conditions in modern prisons, the custodial placement may be considered as a rest in some sort of a hotel at some point. Therefore, as stated above, such punishment cannot be considered as an equal to the provided criminal actions.
One more stand point supporting the necessity of providing death penalties should be observed. Capital punishments of severe criminals also reflect on the financial state of every government and country. With the highly abnormal morality among most citizens in many democratic countries, the death penalty is prohibited as the violation against human rights and the high system of morality. Such approach is wrong in accordance with the legitimacy of punishment for provided criminal actions. In many cases, criminals who killed or tortured a person or several people become only life-term prisoners in criminal facilities with rather cozy interior. Those prisoners have a daily tasty nutritious meal, some decent living accommodations, and fellows with the same state of mind.
All criminal facilities are paid from the taxes, thus, at some point, common citizens pay all the criminal’s living costs from the own wallet. From this perspective, all family members of a victim, and in some cases a victim by self pay their taxes to provide own offender with food and vitamins, support with living accommodations and electricity. Such approach is not fair towards the victim and his or her family members, since, the offender is already caused serious problems and expenses for trauma recovery or funeral arrangement.
From this perspective, the death penalty is more profitable for the society and the government in general. Costs, given for the keeping the offender or a serial killer can develop into great sum of money in the end for providing and supporting his or her life in the correctional facility. These costs can be spent on more necessary needs of a country, for example, mediation programs between victims and their offenders, social needs, medical researches etc. Therefore, keeping severe criminals in prisons within the frames of imprisonment for life may keep the whole society and country behind from serious and important programs and researches.
In fact, the abovementioned arguments should be reasonable enough for providing capital punishments for all severe and cruel criminals. In the present world, the death penalties are provided within humane frames, and even the electric chairs are substituted with absolutely painless lethal injections (Walker 24). Some people find this approach reasonable and fair enough, however, a person, who made suffer one victim or several as well as their family members and close relatives, does not deserve such a humane death penalty. As stated above, many people in various democratic countries find themselves highly moral for providing capital punishments, stating that they are better than that particular offender or murder. However, with such point of view, a criminal will not get a proper punishment for his or her actions towards humanity and moral values in general. Every punishment should be equal to provided criminal actions by its severity, and even performing the capital punishment through the lethal injections should not be considered as a proportional punishment.
Taking into account all abovementioned, one can say that death penalties should take place in the modern society. Every crime action should be observed in details and provided with a proper punishment for it. Retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation are three main stand points for giving a death sentence for every cruel offender and murderer. Retribution is the first stand point and implies a proper and equal punishment for a serious crime. Due to this stand point, every violent actions should be punished, and if some particular person decided to take someone’s life than he or she should be aware of the paying the full price necessity.
The second stand point – deterrence reflects in the idea of possible crime actions prevention among other possible criminals. Knowing that a person, committed a serious crime will definitely get the same severe punishment as a death penalty, in many cases, cause a restraining effect on other active and potential criminals. They see all causes, actions and effects by visual demonstration, and have an opportunity to think more than once before deciding to kill or severely humiliate another person.
The last standpoint maintains the idea of making impossible for some particular serious criminal to provide the same violent actions in the future. Due to the modern legislative system, even serious criminals have an opportunity to become free for their good behave and visual repent on sins, even if they were sentenced to the lifetime imprisonment. Such people may show regret, but they will always remain murderers and offenders in their deep conscious. In fact, there is always a chance for recurrent mental shift that will cause the same actions as in the past. However, with providing capital punishments, such cases will always be impossible.