- Tailored to your requirements
- Deadlines from 3 hours
- Easy Refund Policy
Research Question: Is capital punishment a measure of instrumental rationality employed for curbing severe crimes or a measure that does not achieve its averted goals and, more so, violates human rights?
Penal sanctions have been exercised as capital punishment for many years. It was considered a right action to enforce law and order and has been practiced from historical laws. However, its application has become rather dubious, notably at a time when most nations have opted to do away with it and embrace more civilized punishment methods instead. Internationally, there has been a shift towards abolition due to issues related to rights and justice, plus the ethical consequences of state-sanctioned executions. This movement has occurred in light of the controversies involving the utility and morality of the death penalty. Opponents claim that this does not act as a better form of deterrent than life imprisonment; the risk of executing the innocent is intolerable. Furthermore, in a world with increasing emphasis on human rights, some of the methods, such as the death penalty, are in question for ethicality.
Thesis: There is critical inefficiency and inappropriateness in capital punishment in discouraging crimes since it does not deter them more than life imprisonment, which increases the chances of wrongful executions. It violates human rights despite the arguments that it discourages heinous crimes and is a just measure.
Detailed Outline
Leave assignment stress behind!
Delegate your nursing or tough paper to our experts. We'll personalize your sample and ensure it's ready on short notice.
Order nowParagraph 1: Capital as an Inefficient Deterrent
A. Insufficiency of Data on the Effectiveness of the Deterrents
Studies done in the past reveal that the use of the death penalty is not more practical in preventing crime than any other punishment. For instance, Sorensen et al. (2020) pointed out that no sufficient evidence proved capital punishment is a deterrent measure compared to life imprisonment. Also, data gathered from Archer and Gartner (2020) proves that capital punishment does not have any significant effect on decreasing the level of crime.
B. Alternative Deterrents
Thus, applying life imprisonment without chances of parole is more civilized and has the same effectiveness as the death penalty. Bun et al. (2020) posit that life sentences give a similar deterrence impact, hence eliminating the scenario of wrongful capital punishment. This alternative provides for the chance for a prisoner to be corrected and does not raise the moral and ethical question of executing a criminal.
C. Moral and Ethical Considerations
Penalties that lead to one’s death are another contentious issue from a moral perspective because one is taking a life for another as a punishment, which is considered unethical. Shocking as this might sound, capital punishment is irreversible and can, in some cases, involve an innocent individual, and for this reason, it is considered a moral issue.
Paragraph 2: The Risk of Wrongful Execution
A. Wrongful Convictions Data
In capital punishment, there is an immense danger of executing the wrong culprit. According to Garrett (2019), at least 190 persons who have been sentenced to death in the U. S. have been released from death row and exonerated since 1973 because of fresh evidence of their innocence. This data brings into perspective why it is essential to embrace the fact that wrongful convictions are not single incidents but rather a norm. The increase in wrongful convictions leads to a loss of public confidence in the criminal justice system.
B. Errors in the Judiciary
Some of the causes of wrongful convictions include prejudice to race, inadequate counsel, and procedural misconduct. These flaws result in the irreversible death of innocent individuals. While other types of punishments can offer the chance of correcting wrongdoing, capital punishment entails an irreversible sentence, which is quite dangerous.
C. Case Study
The wrongful execution that could be mentioned in this regard is the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas in 2004 on the charges of arson and murder. Steiker & Steiker (2022) show that the forensic proof employed in Willingham’s trial was misleading. Thus, there are questions about his actual culpability, the calamity of wrongful executions, and the deficiencies in the criminal justice system.
Paragraph 3: Violations of Human Rights by Capital Punishment
A. Standards of International Human Rights.
More and more global human rights nongovernmental organizations, as well as human rights norms, do not approve of the practice of capital punishment as it infringes on the fundamental rights of persons. UN The Human Rights Committee has requested the end of the death penalty, claiming that the death penalty is against the right to life and also against cruel and inhuman treatment (Steiker & Steiker, 2020). Amnesty International publications also document an emerging worldwide perspective towards the eradication of this practice, with more than two-thirds of the world’s nations having eliminated the death penalty either in law or in practice. This trend forces the U. S. to reflect on its stance regarding the death penalty, as its stance contradicts international human rights standards.
B. A Cruel and Inhumane Punishment
The death penalty is widely referred to as cruel, inhuman treatment meted out to offenders. Continued acceptance of the belief that cruel and unusual punishment embraces the methods of execution inflicting both physical and psychological suffering has been underlined by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (Hendriks, 2019). These controversies are evident in lethal injection.
C. Societal Impact
The continued use of capital punishment remains inconsistent with the values of a society, as it bases its policies on the norms and cultures of the society, undermining the set values. This message is disturbing as it is indicative of the fact that the state supports retributive rather than restorative justice and catalyzes further violence rather than restoring human dignity.
Counterargument 1: The Case for Capital Punishment
A. It Effectively Discourages Heinous Crimes and provides solace
Those in favor of capital punishment insist that it effectively discourages specific categories of dreadful crimes and offers redemption. Archer and Gartner (2020) argue that it serves as a deterrent since it makes criminals fear the worst or instead ditch the act. Further on, some advocates of the death penalty assert that justice is served if the death penalty is administered, as it provides comfort to the families of the victim.
B. Addressing the Counterarguments
However, the evidence in favor of deterrence is still questionable, and its critics frequently refer to methodological issues. In most cases, the arguments that support the death penalty as a crime prevention mechanism are thrown away not only by showing that the death penalty does not deter crime but also by showing that there is no correlation between capital punishment and crime rate. The idea of closure can be attained by life imprisonment without the chance of parole; it is equally possible to correct miscarried convictions to have a fairer and more humane form of punishment than the death penalty.
Counterargument 2: Justice and Fairness
A. It is just a correction measure equivalent to the crimes committed
Supporters of the death penalty highlight the fact that it is a sound way of balancing the harm done by criminals by punishing them with a punishment that matches the grievousness of their crimes. They reason that justice is served when the principles of right and wrong are thrown away through an act committed by a culprit (Williams et al., 2019). As such, the death penalty balances society or the world order.
B. Refuting the Argument of Fairness
Questions of equity and efficiency accompany the use of the death sentence. Another issue that has arisen about criminal justice is that of disparity or rationality, where it has been found that race, socioeconomic status, and geography play a massive role in deciding who gets a death sentence, implying that justice is done in a biased and selective manner. This goes against the assumption that capital punishment is just because it often targets vulnerable persons. The concept of life imprisonment without any possibility of parole is fairer than the death penalty because there will be no chance of prejudice.
Conclusion
A. Thesis Restatement
The death sentence is a traditional and inefficient means of preventing crime, which is accompanied by the danger of extrajudicial executions and is inadmissible concerning the principles of modern international human rights law.
B. Outline of Major Arguments
This practice does not prevent crime more successfully than life imprisonment, puts at risk the killing of innocent persons, and is inconsistent with modern human rights norms.
C. Final Thoughts
Justice systems must focus on proper treatment for offenders and use reformatory, non-deadly measures of punishment based on restorative justice principles.
Reflection
- There are critical challenges I faced in my research. However, the most confusing process in this research was identifying the most appropriate literature, considering the vast amount of information and articles available on capital punishment.
- The working thesis effectively presents an arguable position against capital punishment. It is supported by three key reasons: the threat of a decline in the effectiveness of deterrence, the risk of wrongful executions, and the potential violation of human rights. These points highlight why an alternative is viable.
- The outline of the anti-capital punishment argument proves that it develops the argument systematically and sequentially. Each section supports the main idea, which is based on the thesis. Capital punishment is inappropriate because it fails to deter crime, counters wrongful convictions, and continues to violate human rights.
- We would appreciate constructive criticism on the clarity and strength of the arguments. Further, it would be helpful to receive tips on the possible sources of diverse and credible information, specifically regarding the counterarguments.
Offload drafts to field expert
Our writers can refine your work for better clarity, flow, and higher originality in 3+ hours.
Match with writerReferences
- Archer, D., & Gartner, R. (2020). Homicide and the death penalty: A cross-national test of a deterrence hypothesis. In Crime, Inequality and the State (pp. 469-483). Routledge.
- Bun, M. J., Kelaher, R., Sarafidis, V., & Weatherburn, D. (2020). Crime, deterrence, and punishment revisited. Empirical economics, 59(5), 2303-2333.
- Garrett, B. L. (2019). Innocence and the global death penalty. In Comparative Capital Punishment (pp. 201-215). Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Hendriks, A. C. (2019). End-of-life decisions. Recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. In Era Forum (Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 561-570). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
- Sorensen, J., Wrinkle, R., Brewer, V., & Marquart, J. (2020). Capital punishment and deterrence: Examining the effect of executions on murder in Texas. In Experiencing Social Research (pp. 197-212). Routledge.
- Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2020). The rise, fall, and afterlife of the death penalty in the United States. Annual Review of Criminology, 3(1), 299-315.
- Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2022). The Court and Capital Punishment on Different Paths: Abolition in Waiting. Wash. & Lee J. Civ. Rts. & Soc. Just, 29, 1.
- Williams, K. E., Votruba, A. M., Neuberg, S. L., & Saks, M. J. (2019). Capital and punishment: Resource scarcity increases endorsement of the death penalty. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(1), 65-73.
