The death penalty has been established as a punishment for crimes since the eighteenth century and this system of execution has lasted to the present day. Those that are for the death penalty claim that the death penalty will work as a deterrence and is the only way for retribution against murderers. Both issues are highly debatable and have been a subject of criticism. Although most of the society argue that culprit’s lives must be ended up by the death penalty, I would say it unfairly gives governments the power to take human life and perpetuates social injustices by disproportionately targeting people of color and people who cannot afford good attorneys and may become a victim of wrongful executions. Moreover, there are better methods to punish the offenders according to the high cost of the death penalty or even more cost-effective.
The death penalty deters crime at some point. However, it can strip people’s life, and therefore they are sentenced to die carrying other people’s blame. Here is the real example of the wrong execution of 14 years old child whose name was George Stinney who was the youngest person in modern times to be put to death. He was interrogated without his parents and the absence of an attorney had a tremendous impact which most likely gave rise to unfair execution. The most shocking part of this story is that it took 70 years after his execution to exonerate him. This case makes more sense than just indicating the government’s misstep. The incidental negligence is far more damaging than intentional obscurity.
The claim that the death penalty should be applied for the criminal is not rational. The government needs any other alternative penalty for murder in which a wise logical presence. For instance, Osama Bin Laden who was perceived as the most craved terrorist and murdered by the US and western collaborators. His death did not diminish the number of murders by his group neither did it deter terrorist activities. Hence, here is the question: what the death penalty brings? There has to be a distinctive option to manage with crimes committed by perpetrators.
For example, deprivation of liberty which counts as a manageable way to limit people’s freedom and ability to take any further independent decisions. Given the fact that offenders are full-fledged and healthy, there is another idea that involves the implementation of works for free that others are less likely to do. In other words, they have been taken hostage and serve the government bringing their benefit and simultaneously paying for their improprieties. It works effectively both to punish offenders and to protect society at the charge of the death penalty. Besides, it is faster, cheaper, and various things could be arranged from the government perspective as well as justice at the highest level.
The subject being examined is that with the awareness of human rights, the death penalty should not be a decent policy established in the 21st century. Progressively, the number of human right supporters rise who fight against the death penalty. Despite being a criminal, this person did not choose to born the same way as no one must judge whether that person should still live or not. Through the use of real-life models, investigations show that the death penalty does not reduce the number of crimes per person. Furthermore, executing a death row internee is a quivering process.
There can be long suspensions in the execution practice, wrong executions, and as soon as we become more educated, our choice significantly changes in terms of matters accordingly. For all the reasons stated above, the states should abolish the death penalty.