The death sentence, or capital punishment, are dealt out to criminals who commit crimes of severe magnitude, for example, first degree murder. However, can one be sure that the criminal deserves the sentence, and that it is not given because of revenge? Do we really have the right to take away another person’s life?
For:
It is for the overall benefit of the society as it ensures that the criminal would do no more harm to society. By killing them, it is the surest way to ensure that no harm would be brought to society.
It is used as a means of deterrence to warn others not to commit the same crime. By using a criminal as an example, it implies that all those who commit crimes will meet the same fate. Thus, fear is used to keep crimes in check.
It is to give the kin of the victims a kind of closure, as an answer to their deaths. The kin of the victim will obviously want to see the criminal punished. Revenge is part of human nature, by seeing the criminal receive whatever they have dished out, it gives them a sense of closure to the death of their loved ones.
Against:
No one has the right to take away another person’s life. We cannot play god. Although we have the ability, we do not have the right to end anyone’s life. Thus, it is morally wrong to take away a life as we did not give it in the first place.
Everybody deserves a second chance. The crime may be committed in a moment of folly. Thus, they deserve a second chance through reforms. In this way, we would be able to reform the criminal and protect the society without going against Mother Nature.
However, if every criminal is to be sent for rehabilitation, there would be an enormous resources strain on the government. In Canada, correctional services expenditures totalled $2.8 billion in 2004/2005, up 2% in constant dollars from 2003/2004. Custodial services (prisons) accounted for the largest proportion (71%) of the expenditures, followed by community supervision services (14%), headquarters and central services (14%), and National Parole Board and provincial parole boards (2%). This figure does not include policing or court costs which bring the total expenditures up to more than $10 billion for the year. Thus it is more cost wise to kill the criminals and the resources could be better used elsewhere, for example, education.
As for the immoral taking of human life, it is to ultimately protect the lives of other people. As cruel as it sounds, the bigger picture must always be considered first. Thus, in order to protect the majority of the people, it is inevitable that a few lives have to be sacrificed in order to ensure the safety of the bigger community.
Thus, I do not agree with the statement that the death sentence cannot be justified. On the contrary, the death sentence should be justifiable as it contributes to ensuring the safety of the society. Therefore, no matter how cruel the death sentence sounds, it is the majority that we need to consider for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)