The Pro and Con Arguments for the Death Penalty

The Pro and Con Arguments for the Death Penalty "¦And Justice for All

In the courtroom the prisoner in a cage is waiting , nervously walking on its periphery and attentively examining the audience. The verdict is decided - the death penalty. His family and lawyer have a few years to appeal, but everybody knows that the death penalty "“ is a clearly serious and irretrievable verdict. "All I can do is hope," he said as the guards returned to dress him in chains for the return trip to death row. Fingering a large gold cross draped around his neck, he added, "I have to keep a strong mind." He stuck out his manacled hands to say goodbye and trudged off stiff-legged down a long corridor as sliding barred gates clanged behind him.

In the state of Florida, the USA, where the condemned are executed in the electric chair, it happens like this: a week when the verdict will be carried out, appoints by the Governor, a day "“ by the warden, and hour "“ by the overseer. The convict should be informed about it beforehand. The overseer carries about his last request - brings cigarettes, books, allows to talk on the phone, invites a priest "¦

On the day of execution the deputy head of the prison the overseer enters to death row with a new suit, boots, and shaving instruments with a towel. In the corridor outside the chamber, he shaves off hair from the head of the condemned. The condemned man takes a shower, put on new clothes, and then they left him alone, so he can pray and smoke a cigarette. Beside him the overseer stands. A few minutes later the condemned is removing to the special room. There is an oak chair, to which the condemned is tied, electrodes attach to his head and to his right leg. The warden asks him if convicted would to say the last word. Then he calling the governor of the state, and if there is no objection, he gives a signal to the executioner, who enters into the room first and leaves last. The executioner presses the red button, and forty witnesses see how condemned killing by electric current.

Unfortunately, it is a real person and a real story. He denied any involvement in the crime. It was Willie Jasper Darden, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Florida. Appeals for clemency have come from a variety of individuals opposed to the capital punishment, including the Pope and Andrei Sakharov, the Nobel laureate. Mr. Darden is one of the 287 condemned men on Florida's death row. Darden, an African American, was convicted by the all-white jury of killing the white man. The state intentionally excluded all the African-American people from the jury.

The issue of death penalty as the highest extent of punishment has always caused heated debates. This is an extremely cruel punishment, which is sometimes more cruel than the crime itself. A person who committed a willful murder deserves to be executed and this is the way they will be responsible for their act. Though, I believe there are a number of reasons why we should not introduce this into practice. Among them is undeveloped justice which may cause a judicial error and as the consequence an innocent person may be hurt.

From 1900 to 1985 in the United States have been executed 25 innocent people. All cases of such executions be left unpunished, since these requires' price is pretty high. Moreover, the government, of course, in every way impedes the investigation. Yes, it is terrible when an innocent person is condemned. To stay alive, even in life imprisonment - this is a great chance that once the truth will be found out, and the innocent will be acquitted. From this perspective, a moratorium on the death penalty is an opportunity to correct the mistake.

How many victims are on the conscience of the British, European, American, Japanese Justice? Can you imagine yourself in the place of the criminal, his family, and the person he killed? Just put yourselves in the place of each of them you could completely analyze all the aspects of the death penalty. The Greek philosopher Aristotle said, " We claim we know each thing when we think we know its primary cause". So I'll start from the historical perspective.

Historically, the death penalty is "evolved" from the ancient custom of blood law, which existed in pre-state society. At that time absence of criminal punishment, revenge and justice was considered as a disgrace. With the advent of the state punitive functions little by little transferred to a special state machinery. Murder of a criminal (the death penalty) became public and took on the status of criminal punishment, executed by the government. However, the list of crimes that fall under the punishment, expanded much more (public, religious and other crimes). Since the second half of the twentieth century, the so-called civilized countries had to abolish the death penalty. In Germany, the death penalty was abolished in 1949, in the UK - in 1969, in 1978 - in Spain, in France - in 1981, in Italy - in 1990. Since 1990, the number of countries wishing to join the standards of humanism, have greatly increased. Nowadays, there are 130 countries which abolished the death penalty by law or practice.

Therefore, it is easy to note that the death penalty was an integral part of the development of any country. The question is "do we need it now?". It is impossible to give a definite answer. This is the question that we cannot answer "yes" or "no" to the world. It must be considered separately for every country. Many politicians and public figures cannot come to a consensus and due to that there is a division into two camps: those who support the death penalty and those who against it.

At the present stage of civilization we must already renounce the use of the death penalty - punishment, which in some countries had been canceled by the end of the XIX century. The theory of natural human rights says that any person as a rational being has an inalienable right to life, liberty and happiness. This right is holy, and it cannot be deprived by anyone, including the government. In situation when the man becomes a criminal, there is always a large part of the society and government's blame. The root of any crime is in the social circumstances and in the social environment. Moreover, I think that introduction of the capital punishment would not solve the issue of criminality, because criminals who committed a crime hope to avoid the punishment. That is why the death penalty does not provide proper restrictive impact.

George Bernard Shaw said, "Execution is the most disgusting form of murder, as it is committed with the approval of the society". Yes, exactly. It is simple. Why do some people make simple things complicated? People are talking about a person who condemned to death: "He will pay his debt to the society," but it will be correct simply to say: "They will cut off his head." Sometimes it seems that the death penalty advocates do not realize clearly what it is. Compare any crime with outrageous right which the society autocratically assigned itself - the right to take away what it did not give. Anyone who support legalization of the death penalty directly implicated in it. The death penalty is an indicator of the evolution of society. But anyway, society must always be better than the individual.

The executioner equals to a cannibal: both are killing because they need food. The fact of having the death penalty approved by the view that a murder could be fair and good thing. Another negative aspect of it is the existence of the executioners institute, ie legalized killers. Besides, a person who has committed a crime might start to believe that there is nothing else to lose and will continue to commit new crimes, trying to cover their tracks.

The opponents of the death penalty expressed economically inefficient of penalty, they say that if we replace it by life imprisonment, a criminal will work for the benefit of the society, and it would be useful. While his death will not be beneficial to anyone. But about what kind of benefits can think any mother, whose child was raped and murdered? What kind of benefits can talk any father, who knows how painful and terrible was his child's death? It's not even about people who have suffered from the atrocities of killers, the point on people who lives now and know that murderers of they children continue to live.

It is really scared that nowadays there are cases when some real criminals can escape from punishment by using lawyers, bribery, intimidation against the witnesses. It is terrible that at school a pedophile can work quietly, and a sadistic torturer can work in an orphanage. It is terrible that they may escape from penalties and continue to live with normal people and children in our society. It has been proved that there are no ex-killers, no ex-pedophiles, no ex-sadists maniacs. After having spent their 25 years in prison, they come back to our society and continue their crimes. Perhaps will life imprisonment solve the problem? Perhaps, if the content of such prisoners in jails will be rigid and life will seems unbearable to them "“ can it somehow compensate heartache of their victims?

Our human civilization at the modern level of its development aims to adopt the absolute sacredness of human life and the fundamental unacceptability of the death penalty. The respect for the individual human being, which reason requires, is further enhanced and strengthened in the light of this truth of faith: thus, we can see that there is no contradiction between the affirmation of the dignity and the affirmation of the sacredness of human life. Nature gave the right to live for everyone. It is truly and inalienable and absolute, as God's commandments says: "Thou shalt not kill."

That is why, we have no right to dispose of another person's life. But we can manage our lives. For example, everyone can make a note in the passport if he pro or con the death penalty. And then, if someone who against, the murderer is killed, it will be not executed, because the victim was against the execution. It is logical. And if the person who was supporting the penalty is killed, then the murder can be executed. A victim has no rights to vote about his murder in the judgment. Here it is right to vote in advance and it is should be given as a final solution of the death penalty issue. Who should decide what to do with the killer, if it is not the killed person?