Should there be a Death Penalty?

Capital punishment, aka death penalty, is undoubtedly one of the most controversial topics in the world today; no wonder it has left the entire world divided into two groups. The first group - which happens to be the majority, comprises all those people who believe that sentencing a person to death for murder or any other brutal crime is a basic necessity for a crime free society. Contrary to this, the second group of people - which also includes human rights groups and organizations like Amnesty International, believe that there is no place for such inhumane practice in the civilized society that we live in.

The Death Penalty Debate
If asked for their opinion on death penalty, thousands of people will vote in favor of this practice. But if you ask the same people why they think so, not many will be able to explain their stance logically. As always, the tragedy is that people take a stand without taking into consideration both sides of the matter. That being totally immature, one has to evaluate death penalty pros and cons - and only then come up with a rational opinion about the issue. Those who are of the opinion that this form of punishment is necessary have a long list of arguments in favor of this practice at their disposal. On the other hand, those who are lobbying for a death penalty free judicial system are armed with numerous reasons against it.

Those in support of death penalty argue that:

• Our judicial system is more sympathetic towards convicts than it is towards the victims of their heinous crime.
• The practice of sentencing a person convicted for murder to death is necessary as it makes sure that justice prevails.
• When a person convicted for crimes like murder, rape or genocide is sentenced to death, it deters other people from resorting to such criminal acts.
• A person convicted for murder roaming around freely (even after he has served his sentence in prison) is no short of a threat for the society.
• The champions of human rights need not pay so much attention to these criminal who themselves don't respect other people's right of life.

Other than these pro death penalty arguments, the proponents of this practice also have a few questions which need to be given a serious thought before taking stand on this issue:

• Is it justified that we use taxpayer's hard-earned money to make sure that a criminal leads a decent life in prison?
• What's the guarantee that the criminal won't resort to some heinous crime after completing his term in prison?
• Do we really need to care for the right of a person who himself doesn't respect the rights of fellow humans?
• Do those people who speak about the consequences of death penalty on criminal's family ever think about victim's family members? Don't they deserve justice?
• Are our family members safe with such anti-social elements roaming around freely in the society?

Those who oppose death penalty argue that:

• The eye for an eye principle, that the capital punishment is based on, doesn't have a place in civilized society.
• If an innocent man is executed as a part of this form of punishment, he can't be brought back even if he is proved innocent at a later stage.
• Even if the criminal is sentenced to death, the victim will not come back to life. On the contrary, the criminal's innocent family members will have to bear the brunt of this sentence.
• There is no concrete evidence to suggest that death penalty acts as a deterrent. If it was, it would have brought down crime rate in several countries of Middle East by now.
• The chances of a poor innocent person being convicted and executed for a crime he didn't commit just because he was not able to afford a good lawyer to defend him cannot be ruled out.

Even the critics of death penalty have some questions which they put forth when supporting their stand on why death penalty should be abolished:

• Do you really need to kill someone to highlight the fact that killing someone is wrong?
• Doesn't it tantamount to revenge when a person is sentenced to death for a crime he has committed?
• Can anyone assure that there are no loopholes in the judicial system and no innocent person will be sent to the gallows?
• Doesn't death penalty come hard on taxpayer's wallet with appeals and re-appeals allegedly costing the government 2.5 times more than what life term in prison costs?
• In cases wherein murder is not the motive or wherein the prevailing circumstances make the person take a step which he wouldn't think about otherwise, is it justified to execute the person straightaway - rather than give him a chance to rehabilitate.

At the end of the day, all these arguments and questions have to be taken into consideration if you intend to take a stand on this issue. Going through the aforementioned information, it becomes very difficult to say which of the two sides have an edge over the other. A better way out is to treat every individual case differently - and, more importantly, make sure that you do away with the loopholes of the judicial system owing to which an innocent person may have to pay with his life.

While the fact that only 18 countries resorted to capital punishment in 2009 may make it seem like our society is moving away from this controversial judicial practice, the fact that a developed nation like the United States of America continues to use it, is something for us to worry about. If those in favor of outlawing death penalty are to be believed, we are heading in the right direction with as many as 139 countries abolishing the practice. Little more efforts, and we will be able to make sure that the world becomes a crime free society without people having to do away with their fundamental right of living.