The Death Penalty Is An Essay Example

argue that every individual has an inherent right to life and that determining who lives or dies should not be within the state's jurisdiction. Nonetheless, this paper counters such claims by asserting that one's right to life is conditional and can be overridden. The presence of self-defense mechanisms or police intervention demonstrates that an absolute right to life does not exist.

Immanuel Kant's use of positive law suggests that the severity of punishment for a wrongdoer should be determined by the harm they have caused. By executing the criminal when warranted, their humanity is acknowledged through accountability for their actions. Hence, without the death penalty, it becomes impossible to meet the necessary level of punishment. The death penalty is viewed as the sovereign's legal right to safeguard its citizens. Punishment has various objectives, including rehabilitation which aims to instill remorse and help prisoners overcome criminal inclinations. However, this objective often remains unfulfilled; evident in statistics showing that "around half of adult offenders re-offend within a year of being released from prison, despite a 50% increase in prison budget over the last ten years." Andrew Dawson serves as an example; he committed murder again after release and was sentenced to life imprisonment for a second time.

This highlights the lack of remorse and ongoing harm caused by certain criminals after serving their sentence. Some individuals commit such brutally cruel acts that execution is justified. Kang Kew Iek, also known as "Comrade Duch", exemplifies this. He ran Cambodia's Prison S-21, resulting in 15,000 inmates and only 7 survivors. He was convicted of mass murder and received a lenient sentence of 35 years, with only 19 to be served. When

considering the number of victims, he is set to serve just a few hours in prison per person killed. This is less time than one could spend incarcerated for driving without a valid license.

There is widespread anger and disbelief over the lenient punishment given for a heinous crime. Even if life imprisonment were imposed, it would not be sufficient as the time served per victim would still be insignificant. Therefore, harsher penalties are necessary for individuals like this, as discussed in the following paragraphs.

The only appropriate solution is to reinstate the death penalty. Not only does it save innocent lives, but it also acts as a strong deterrent. Critics argue that the death penalty does not deter criminals; however, even if that were true, it would still be justified. If we execute murderers without deterring others, we are simply eliminating one group of killers. Conversely, if we refrain from executing murderers when it could have deterred similar crimes, we allow further murders to occur...

The importance of protecting potential victims, deterring murderers, and sparing innocent individuals outweighs the preservation of convicted murderers' lives. Executing them may not discourage others. However, from a logical standpoint, the death penalty serves as a strong deterrent. If all murderers were instantly killed upon committing their crime, they would only engage if they desired their own death. Nonetheless, murder-suicides make up a small portion of overall murders. Therefore, implementing a swift and certain death penalty universally for the most heinous criminals would logically act as an impactful deterrent. This logical conclusion has prompted numerous academics to further study its effects, with ample evidence supporting this theory. Professor Isaac Ehrlich from the

University at Buffalo concluded that punishment and execution have a distinct deterrent effect on potential murderers. A comprehensive study by three professors at Emory University conservatively estimated that each execution saves around 18 prospective victims' lives—an assertion backed by mathematical evidence.The research indicates a link between crimes such as robbery and aggravated assault with higher murder rates. This suggests that if the death penalty was reintroduced, criminal activity may decrease. Crime statistics show that since abolishing the death penalty, the UK experiences more violence compared to the US, where capital punishment is still enforced. Additionally, this becomes even more noteworthy due to the increased population in both countries.

The UK's decision to abolish the death penalty has resulted in a significant increase in crime rates, specifically with unlawful killings more than doubling. This clearly shows that there is a positive correlation between implementing the death penalty and deterring crime. Additionally, it effectively prevents individual criminals from re-offending since they are no longer alive to commit further offenses. Even if a criminal were to receive multiple life sentences without parole, there is still a risk they pose to prison staff and other inmates. In conclusion, both logical and mathematical evidence supports the death penalty as an essential deterrent to crime. Given the current recession, it is crucial not to waste limited resources, especially when the prison system already faces limitations in dealing with these criminals.

The cost of constructing and maintaining each new prison place is ?170,000, with an annual expense of ?41,000 per prisoner. This is a concerning statistic as it is nearly twice the GDP per capita in the UK for one year of supporting a

prisoner. The question arises whether individuals who commit serious crimes are truly worth double the value of hardworking British taxpayers. According to this paper, the unequivocal answer is no.

Opponents of the death penalty often refer to the United States (U.S.) legal system, where executing someone costs more than life imprisonment without parole. However, it is important to note that this high cost figure results from exaggerated claims made by abolitionists. They frequently use unique statistical methods and divide the total cost of the death penalty by the number of executions without subtracting expenses for criminals not sentenced to death.

This approach can be compared to calculating the average cost per prisoner by dividing all court and police expenses for criminal cases by the number of individuals serving time. Such calculations lead to incorrect mathematical conclusions.

Furthermore, the perceived high cost associated with the death penalty is not an inherent result of its implementation. In the United States, this cost is primarily attributed to the lengthy appeals process and delays in carrying out death sentences. The average time spent on death row exceeds a decade. In contrast, 20th century Britain had a significantly shorter average time of 3 to 8 weeks, allowing for only one appeal. This streamlined process made it both efficient and cost-effective. By not reintroducing the death penalty, the UK is missing out on substantial savings that could be allocated to enhancing law enforcement efforts and further reducing crime.

The cost of using lethal injection as the method of execution is the only expense. Despite being cheaper, a shooting range is not the most suitable way to carry out an execution. Shooting can be messy and

may have psychological effects on the shooter who has to shoot someone up close. However, this issue does not arise with lethal injection. While there is a possibility of pain with any execution method, it does not qualify as cruel and unusual punishment since it is an inherent consequence of death. Additionally, it is legally possible to reinstate the death penalty in the UK; however, doing so would require renegotiating EU membership, which has become increasingly likely due to growing Euroscepticism.

Moreover, reintroducing the death penalty in the UK would require leaving the Optional Protocols to the ECHR. This could be done through legislation that is likely to gain public support. While this paper supports bringing back capital punishment, it does not provide a foolproof strategy for achieving this goal. However, as mentioned earlier, it is indeed feasible. Therefore, it becomes crucial to reinstate the death penalty for the most appalling crimes. Nevertheless, determining what qualifies as the 'worst' offenses is a delicate task and the UK would not adopt Sudan's approach of imposing death sentences on homosexuals. Consequently, a set of guidelines should be established to determine which crimes should be considered when there is undeniable evidence against the perpetrator.

A potential starting point for supporting the death penalty in the UK is by considering intentional homicide and/or rape, along with aggravating factors. This form of punishment is backed by moral and practical justifications and enjoys majority approval from the public. Therefore, when opting against reintroducing it, the UK showcases mercy towards the guilty but inadvertently inflicts harm upon the innocent.