Introduction justification for anti-death, it is worth
The debate about whether to withhold the death penalty or not continues to occupy a relatively larger space in the contemporary society today (Regoli & Hewitt, 2008). The application of the death penalty has been in existence for many years.
This practice gains insight from both biblical phases of the Old Testament and the Islamic Quran, which embraced the use of the death penalty in ensuring dispensation of justice. Stakeholders in both legal and social settings have leveled significant arguments relating to the use of the death penalty as a means of dispensing justice.
The practice of applying the death penalty has existed since the biblical moment to date. Although the application of death punishment has received much opposition from the ardent believers of anti-death practices, this method remains the most feasible and efficacious approach in dispensing fairness. Although vivid studies have illustrated that the use of the death penalty does not yield conclusive results.
Although critics of death penalty have highlighted issues of morality and the Biblical justification for anti-death, it is worth considering the effects and the impacts created after a murder. I strongly agree that putting an end to a life does not justify a solution in its self. However, to the directly affected people and family, it serves to comfort their souls after a great loss of one of their family member.
Assume that an individual who killed one of your relatives is comfortably resting under the guise of life or long-term imprisonment. Their continual existence fails to offer comfort to the affected because they develop a feeling of neglect and injustice perpetrated by the government supposedly meant to propel justice and fairness today (Regoli & Hewitt, 2008).
Arguing from the perspective of morality, it is worth noting that the inability of a system of justice to bring the murderer to fair judgment fails to demonstrate commitment to distributive justice. It is beneficial to the society to eliminate a life that fails to grand dignity to other lives within the society.
The application of death penalty as a capital punishment for murder finds mention in the Bible in the book of Genesis. In Genesis 9:6 (King James Version), The Bible says that whosoever sheds the blood of a man, shall man shed his blood: for man is the image of God.
This passage ratifies death penalty as a form of punishing a murderer because of killing a man made in the image of God. Therefore, the Bible categorically places emphasis on death penalty as a just method of dispensing the law and justice basis on the innate value placed on life and human beings.
Studies show that the act of death penalty serves to deter other potential murderers. Therefore, a society will be relieved off the burden of possible future incidences of murder aggravated by the accused or others planning accomplish murder.
Largely, people convicted of murder have tendencies of repeating the act, thus, keeping them would not only be a means to promoting social injustice, but also to further increased murder (Jones, 2010). This applies to cases where individuals are or show potential signs of serial killing. Such individuals left to survive will continue to execute lives regardless of the efforts to reclaim his or her behavior.
Death punishment not only threatens the potential criminals, but also serves as a retribution for justice to both parties in the foregoing case. Psychological studies suggest that the inability to deter murders have the ability to yield subsequent cases. Punishments are the requisite factor for the deterrence of crime and other possible injustices.
The cost of maintain detainees impact hugely on national budgets. Therefore, persons found guilty of murder should be put to death in order to save the funds gotten out of the people to whom his action deprived their loved one. To continue sustaining these individuals at the expense of the taxpayers money does not conform to the ideals of fairness.
Hence, death penalty helps a government to reduce its spending on jails in terms of economic and human resources. Usually individuals jailed because of capital crimes continue to enjoy numerous rights regardless of their status within the society Usually, huge funds get into program aimed at sustaining detainees charged with murder and other capital offenses (Jones, 2010).
Taking on the issue based on the economic aspects of maintaining criminals convicted of capital crimes, one may begin to ask whether the governments are justified to commit huge funds on sustaining these individuals. It is practically ineffective and economically unjustifiable to allot huge resources in a view to keep individuals guilty of capital crimes. Committing economic and human resources in public jails serve to perpetrate similar injustices since criminals end up enjoying from the public taxes (Pojman & Reiman, 1998).
Therefore, spending on people who have already denied life to other people remains a double tragedy to the society. In order to demonstrate fair and equitable justice, governments should shun the practice and embrace the death penalty (Peter, Carlson & Garrett, 2008). Usually individuals jailed because of capital crimes continue to enjoy numerous rights regardless of their status within the society. Except the right for association and free speech, criminals continue to access many other privileges (Pojman & Reiman, 1998).
Death penalty is good because it is conclusive in nature, thus has the capacity to reduce crime while bringing justice to both guilty and innocent people. For death sentence to deliver its mandate, it should be modeled together with other forms of punishment in order to remain effective and efficacious.
The society develops a feeling of threat and insecurity in cases where the justice system detests death punishment. For the society to exercise its freedom, it should completely separate hi-tech criminals in order to create an environment capable of fostering peace and tranquility.
Clearly, the fear of the death penalty based on the nature of its finality produces results of deterrence of future crimes and as such, criminals who commit the injustice or the would-be murderers who have the tendency of murdering eventually receive a final stake of their engagements.
Studies conducted by Regoli & Hewitt (2008) suggest that serial killers have continued to perfect their acts, and their actions have drawn from the historical killings. Additionally, research undertaken within various criminal settings abundantly provide statistical evidence that one case of murder is highly likely to amount to numerous cases. In a bid to deter serial killers, it is arguable that death penalty would offer the best solution to the underling social problem (Peter, Carlson & Garrett, 2008).
This paper has sought a critical analysis of the need for death punishment as a sure way of dispensing justice in an average society. The practice of applying the death penalty has existed since the biblical moment to date. Although the application of death punishment has received much opposition from the ardent believers of anti-death practices, this method remains the most feasible and efficacious approach in dispensing fairness.
Although vivid studies have illustrated that the use of the death penalty does not yield conclusive results, the statistical evidence does not disqualify its application (Jones, 2010). In general, the legal and moral grounds embedded in this argument forms a reliable and feasible means to justify the innate fairness of using the death penalty.
Jones, S. J. (2010). Coalition building in the anti-death penalty movement: privileged morality, race realities. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
Peter M. Carlson, P. M., & Garrett, J. S. (2008). Prison and Jail Administration: Practice and Theory. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Pojman, L. P., & Reiman, J. H. (1998). The death penalty: for and against. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
Regoli, R. M., & Hewitt, J. D. (2008). Exploring criminal justice. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2008.