Should Death Penalty be Abolished?

Death penalty, also referred to as the capital punishment, is the judicial process wherein an individual is executed, by means of legal proceedings, for some heinous crime that he has committed. There exist numerous forms of execution; the most prominent ones being hanging by the neck, electrocution and lethal injection. Whether it should be abolished or not is a question which has divided the world into two groups - the first comprises those who feel that it is a denial of the basic human rights, and second comprises those who feel that people who deny others the right to live don't deserve any human rights themselves.

Death Penalty Statistics

Statistics reveal that around 90 percent of the countries have already abolished the practice. This includes countries like Portugal, Venezuela, France, Canada, etc. That, however, hasn't turned out to be as fruitful as expected, as some of the major countries in the world, including the China, India and the United States, still continue the use it as a part of their legal system. Statistical data also reveals that approximately 80 percent of the death penalty executions the world over, come from the Asian countries, with China at the forefront with the highest execution rate in the world. In fact, the number of executions in China alone in 2008 was double the number of executions in the rest of the world combined for that year.

Death Penalty Debate

Capital punishment laws differ from one country to another. In some countries, an individual may be sentenced to death for some serious crime, such as homicide or rape, while in other countries the same punishment is sentenced when convicted for corruption or other relatively less serious crimes. Today, the news of death penalty executions anywhere in the world make it to the front page of the leading dailies in the world, thus rekindling the age-old debate time and again.

Why it Should be Abolished?
The aim of the judicial system is to reform the individual found guilty of a particular crime, and the death penalty contradicts this very aim. The judicial process is undertaken to judge whether the person has committed the crime or not, and not to judge whether he will reform or not. This is one of the most prominent argument of the people who believe that the practice should be abolished. These people also argue that the judicial system can be well-versed with the investigation, but it can't really have an opinion on the whether the convict is ready to reform or not.

Secondly, no legal system in this world can boast of cent percent discipline when it comes to crime investigation. There are chances that lack of proper investigations may land a wrong person in the conviction box, and even send him to gallows. One also has to understand that execution of an individual cannot be rectified if the person was found to be innocent after the execution. On the other hand, a person serving a life term can at least be set free once his innocence has been proved.

Every individual deserves a second chance in life. An individual convicted for a crime is more likely to learn from his mistake after serving the prison term, but not giving him an opportunity to do so doesn't fit into the norms of a civilized society. The poor can't afford to hire good lawyers to prove their innocence, while the rich get away with anything they do owing to their money power. That being said, there are significant chances that the bias towards the rich would only result in the poor having to bear the brunt.

On moral grounds, people who demand that death penalty should be abolished also argue that there is some difference between a criminal in the conviction box and the administration. If a person is sentenced to execution by the administration, what will be the difference between the criminal and administration?

Why it Shouldn't be Abolished?
The number of people in favor of the death penalty is quite decent as well. These people argue that respecting the human rights of a person who himself doesn't have any respect for the rights of others is obviously out of question. Moral grounds are not at all substantial to challenge the fact that the person has committed a heinous crime.

Those in favor of capital punishment also ask why the taxpayers should have to take the burden of housing a convict, and providing him with the necessities of life. Instead, executing him will save a decent amount of money, which can channelized towards the development of the nation.

More importantly, allowing this person to roam about freely in the society, even if it is after the completion of his term in prison, is indeed a risk. No one can give a guarantee that the person will repent after his prison term, and refrain from doing such things in the future. More importantly, sentencing a person for capital punishment for crimes like murder or rape will also work in dissuading others from committing such crimes.

There is yet another group of people, who argue that death penalty should be scrapped, not because it is inhumane, but because it is an easy way out for the criminals. One has to take into consideration the fact that punishment is given with the intention of making the criminal pay for his actions - so that he doesn't repeat the same, and set an example for others to follow - so that they think twice before resorting to any such crime. While the first option is out-of-bounds when it comes to death penalty, it does have the tendency of setting an example in order to curb uncivilized behavior in the society. If, at all, giving capital punishment serves the purpose, then going with people in favor of capital punishment, is by far the best way to create a crime-free society.