Case against the Death Penalty

When the so get together states Secretary General Kofi Annan was presented with a entreat containing 3. 2 million signatures from 146 countries for a planetary moratorium on the final stage clip, he had commented The ritual killing of deportment is too absolute, too irreversible, for unmatched valet being to inflict it on anformer(a), raze when backed by sanctioned process. And I trust that future generations, passim the cosmos, forget come to agree. (Gettings) The words of the former(prenominal) UN Secretary General were in occurrence an echo of the sentiments of the millions of signatories to the petition that was presented to him.The remnant sentence strikes at the aggregate of homosexual beings aesthesia and sensibility. The world is divided into al most(prenominal) two equal c group As one turbulently in rear and the other equ eithery passionately against this extreme invoice of censure in gentlemans gentlemane history. Forty-seven percent Ameri pi ece of tails assist the conclusion penalization, while 48% would preferably prefer vitality without payrole ( final stage penalization randomness Centre). Both the c vitamin As present practical, logical and win oer arguments favoring their stand. Those who be against the closing penalization swear that this extreme measure has minimum encumbrance effect, violates the most primeval of human being skillfuls, i.e. the make up(a) to living, is completely out of sync with genteel friendship and should be abolished outright and forthwith. Those who verify the remainder penalization, on the other hand, do so because they hold that it acts as a major warnrent to heinous crimes, crimes connected by criminals who, conformationing to them, not save do not deserve a determine in order, single when kindredly lose the right to heart. They take up to fracture so that any chance of them reiterate their crime and adding others to their list of victims is el iminated forever. The state, it is reasoned, takes the life to accord protection to future victims of the convicted.An objective psycho summary of the arguments for and against the close penalisation however merchantman notwithstanding lead to the inevitable decision that the termination penalization has no place in civilized society. Two actu anyy undeniable and universal facts override altogether arguments in support of the expiry penalization the fundamental human right to life along with completely its critical implications to the single and to society, and the irrevocability and finality of the conclusion sentence that takes outdoor(a) both probability of redemption or reconsideration at the wait of the human nature to err.The Deterrent Factor Those who support the terminal penalization do so on the basis of the belief that it acts as a firm deterrent to crimes similar to those committed by the condemned. The facts and figures, however, tell a different sto ry. In the fall in evinces, the to the second accounts for 80% of the descend executions, yet it has the highest executing rate. However, the north eastern hemisphere, which has less than 1% of all executions, as well has the lowest execution rate (Death penalization culture Centre).The figures lend themselves to very keen forward interpretations either the oddment penalization is failing miserably to act as a deterrent in the south or it has to be accepted that the wad of the south is inherently to a greater achievement homicidal in nature or is hardly to a greater extent susceptible to cut up. on that point be other figures that corroborate the fact that the finale penalty does not actually sequel in a decrease in murder rates. In Canada, the ending penalty was abolished in 1976. The homicide rate in the pastoral started declining since 1975, and in 1999 the homicide rate was the lowest since 1967.An analysis by the New York Times in 2000 tack that the ho micide rates in the US states with the death penalty portion about been 48% to 101% high than in states without the death penalty (John Howard partnership of Ontario). An overwhelming 84% of the top criminologists of the United States harbour rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder (Radelet & Akers). The forbearance International has besides failed to stripping conclusive depict that the death penalty has any unique capacity to deter others from committing similar crimes.In its survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates conducted in 1998 and updated in 2002, it reason out that it was not prudent to accept the meditation that hood punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and drill of the supposedly lesser punishment of life captivity. (Hood 230) If deterrence implies that the condemned is rendered unable to quote the crime and claim more victim, then i t will also capture to intend that the condemned would incur repeated the crime if allowed to overleap the death penalty.That piece of tail however be an assumption and an assumption only. And even if we hold that the condemned psyche would experience indeed time-tested to repeat the crime, it would be possible only if the person is allowed the liberty and the opportunity to do so. Life imprisonment without parole would be a preferred alternative to the death penalty in such a baptismal font. Critics would however be quick to indicate out the financial implications of life imprisonment. alternate(a) means to incapacitate In hold, however, legion(predicate) studies adjudge found that the cost of implementing a death penalty is oftentimes higher than the cost of maintaining a prisoner for life. at that place atomic number 18 many a(prenominal) reasons why the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole ( capital of the United States penalisation Project) i. A more than higher percentage of cases go to visitation in case of death penalties. ii. Murder trials generally take all-night when the death penalty is at issue. A capital murder trial remainders over 3. 5 time longer than non-capital murder trials (Cook & Slawson). Certain constitutional safeguards check to be taken in the case of death penalty trials leading to greater time requirement. The Jury selection surgery is also more complex and impractical and takes more time.iii. Death penalty trials require more intense pretrial preparations and more elaborate proceedings. The sentencing phase about amounts to a second trial. All litigation costs, more often than not, capture to be borne by the tax payer. The Joint Legislative cipher de markation of the calcium Legislature has cerebrate that elimination of the death penalty would gist in a net nest egg to the state of at least several(prenominal) tens of millions of dollars ann ually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a comprehensive basis. (Budget Committee)It is therefore amply clear the life imprisonment without parole is a comparatively cheaper and equally effective alternative to the death penalty, plainly overturnd the same decimal point of incapacitation on the condemned on the individual level. The may 2006 Gallup Poll (in the United States) found that general support for the death penalty was 65% (down from 80% in 1994). The same top developed that when respondents ar given the choice of life without parole as an alternate sentencing option, more choose life without parole (48%) than the death penalty (47%). (John Howard Society of Ontario)Irreversibility of the Death penalty The intrinsic weakness of the death penalty as a justifiable measure lies in the fact that it is irreversible and irrevocable. legion(predicate) examples bear testimony to the fact that even the highest judi cial ashes of any rude can make mistakes, that innocent persons guide been dealt the death penalty time and again, that persons on the death row had been granted last minute reprieve when their innocence had been move upd. Studies reveal that more than 200 people wear been wrongfully convicted of serious crimes such as murder and rape in California alone since 1989 (Martin).In the United States, 123 persons have been label and released from death row since 1973 (Death Penalty teaching Center). A 1980s study in the United States identified 353 cases since the turn of the nose candy of wrongful convictions for offences punishable by death and 25 innocent persons were actually punish (John Howard Society of Ontario). The death penalty leaves no scope for errors in view. If a person is found to be innocent afterwards the sentence has been carried out, there is no fashion in which the wrong can be undone.Unlike in other cases, the option for recompense for a wrong done is al so completely ruled out in the case of the death penalty. It is therefore sham that the state and the judicial mechanism atomic number 18 infallible, that there can be no mistakes. The facts have proved this assumption wrong. The core issue of human rights The most call down case against the death penalty is that it is an misdemeanor on the most fundamental of all human rights the right to life. A death penalty is imposed in the bear on of the state. But does the state actually have the right to deprive a person of his or her life?It could be a dangerous proposition even to deal so. Hitlers Germany believed in the absolute right of the state. The consequences mark a very bleached period in the history of humankind. argon we tempting fate again by according the state the right to impose and execute the death penalty? In the December 1948 Universal Declaration of gentle Rights, nations of the world came together to ensure the fundamental rights of every person. These human ri ghts were not subjugate to the will of the state, but were declared to be inherent in every human being. It was not the states prerogative to grant or withdraw the human rights.The fundamental human rights therefore pull limitations on what a state may do to a person. The Universal solvent recognizes each persons right to life. The death penalty is therefore a fragrant violation of human rights. humanity rights preserve the self-respect of the individual. There can be no justification barbarian and beastly treatment and punishment that degrades the subject matter of humanity. The death penalty inflicts the most stark(a) kind of mental and physical crucify not only on the condemned, but also on al those who are related to the condemned. Every member of the society also has to own responsibility as a constituent unit of the state.In fact, the broader sense of human rights issue has been the basis of abolishment of the death penalty in many countries. In 1995, Spain aboli shed the death penalty on the primings that the death penalty plainly could not be fitted into the penal system of advanced and civilized societies, that depriving a person of life was too degrading or afflictive a punishment (Hood 14). The second African Constitutional Court (154) in its historic opinion when banning the death penalty commented that the death penalty violate the right to life and dignity which is the most important of all human rights.And by banning the death penalty, the state was in effect demonstrating the fact. Countries such as Singapore and Trinidad and Tobago have had to deny that the death penalty was a violation of human rights in clubhouse to carry on with their practice of the death penalty. However, the fact that the death penalty is a critical human rights issue has gained change magnitude acceptance at the international level. In 1997, the U. N. postgraduate fit out for Human Rights approved a resolution stating that the abolition of the deat h penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and to the progressive development of human rights. (12) sequent resolutions strengthened this resolution by constrictive the offences for which the death penalty could be imposed, finally leading to abolition. The member states of the Council of Europe have established Protocol 6 to the European Council on Human Rights advocating the abolition of the death penalty. On the same grounds, the European man and wife had made the abolition of the death penalty a precondition for entry into the Union. This had resulted in the halting of executions in many east European countries such as Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Montenegro and flop which had applied for membership to the Union.Not an meat for an eye Proponents of the death penalty attempt to apologise their stand on the principle of lex talionis or eye-for-an-eye which advocates that force play must in some(prenominal) measure be answered by vehemence or that t he punishment should fit the crime. They believe that such retribution serves justice to murder victims and their survivors. Robert Blecker of the New York Law School testified by nature grateful, we reward those who aim us pleasure. instinctively resentful, we punish those who cause us pain. Retributively, society intentionally inflicts pain and suffering on criminals because and to the extent that they deserve it.But only to the extent they deserve it. Justice, a moral imperative mood in itself, requires deserved punishment. Just as the individual do not have the right to kill, society also should not be empowered to kill. The retribution theory would dictate that the rapist be despoiled and the house of the arsonist be set on fire. Such a form _or_ system of government would go against the basic tenets of justice. If violence can be justified by violence than it follows that every act of violence whether perpetuated by the state or the individual would be justifiable on som e ground or the other.Retribution in kind would bring the state down to the level of the criminal. There would then be no sign between the dispenser of the law and the one who violates it. prejudiced Applications The extent of misuse of the death penalty is another reason that calls for its abolition. In the policy-making context, the death penalty has often been use to eliminate opponents and suppress popular uprisings. Here, the doubtfulness of fairness in making the judgment becomes a very subjective one.What is punishable by death for one political regime could very well be deemed a heroic act of valour for another. The labeling of the act therefore depends very much on the actors and the circumstances and the environment in which they operate. That is the reason why people who are executed are often after turned into martyrs. It happened in Hitlers Germany, in India and in South Africa. It is happening in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Serbia and in many other places wherever tw o groups of people look at the world with irrelevant perspectives. Take the example of ibn Talal Hussein Hussien.Richard negociates, director of Human Rights Watchs International Justice Program, was a keen-sighted voice when he said , ibn Talal Hussein Hussein was responsible for massive human rights violations, but that cant rationalise giving him the death penalty, which is a cruel and inhuman punishment. (Human Rights Watch) A November 2006 report by Human Rights Watch pointed out legion(predicate) serious flaws in the trial of Saddam Hussein. Among other defects, the report found that Iraki government actions had all along undermined the Iraki High Tribunal and threatened its independency and perceived impartiality.Handing Saddam Hussein the death penalty has been viewed by a epic section of the world as a measure made necessary by the prevailing political and military positioning rather than a quest for justice. There is also a very strong view in the United States t hat the application of the death sentence is racially discriminatory. Studies have been conducted to examine the relationship between accelerate and death penalty in all the states that where the death penalty is still active.The Capital Punishment Project reports that 96% studies found a pattern of either race-of-victim or race-of-suspect disagreement. Of those executed since 1976, approximately 35% have been black, even though blacks constitute only 12% of the population. It has been found that the odds of receiving a death sentence are almost four times higher if the defendant is black. The Amnesty International has also insist that races does have an impact on capital punishment, and that the judicial system of the United States have been able to do precious runty about it.Amnesty International has attributed this failure of the courts and legislatures of the regular army to act decisively at the face of evidence that race has an impact on the death sentence to a incarnate blind faith that America will never waver on the non-negotiable demands of human dignity including equal justice. Even if the death penalty was justifiable, there is compelling evidence that its implementation falls far briefly of the standards of fairness expected. There is a list to use this extreme measure as an intimidating factor by the right forces of the world to assert themselves and to wrongfully govern and suppress others.The world is coming approximately The good news is that the world at large is coming together to prove that the death penalty is an unacceptable proposition. The United Nations has declared itself in favour of abolition. Two- terces of the countries of the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. In the United States itself, 13 states are now without the death penalty. The latest cultivation from Amnesty International shows that i. 90 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes ii. 11 countrie s have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimesiii. 30 countries can be considered emancipationist in practice they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions, iv. a total of 131 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, v. 66 other countries and territories retain and use the death penalty, but the number of countries which actually execute prisoners in any one year is much smaller. The debate over capital punishment has raged on long enough. The world is finally showing the door to the death penalty.In doing so, it is stating in no uncertain terms that the holiness of life of a fellow human being is above the purview of all man-made laws. That only the giver of life has the right to take it back. Works Cited 1. Amnesty international, United States of America, Death by disc rimination the continuing role of race in capital cases, April 24, 2003. Library, Online Documentation Archive. November 10, 2007 <http//web. amnesty. org/library/ advocate/engamr510462003 > 2. Blecker, Robert. Letter to the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission supplementing precedent testimony, October 24, 2006. 3.Budget Committee, Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, September 9, 1999. 4. Capital Punishment Project, Race and the Death Penalty, American complaisant Liberties Union, November 10, 2007 < http//www. aclu. org/death-penalty > 5. Capital Punishment Project, The High Costs of the Death Penalty. American Civil Liberties Union, 2003. 6. Death Penalty Information Center, sinlessness and the Death Penalty, November 9, 2006. <http//www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? did=412&severe combined immunodeficiency=6> 7. Death Penalty Information Centre. November 5, 2007 Facts about the Death Penalty. November 8, 2007.< htt p//www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/FactSheet. pdf > 8. Gettings, John. Death Penalty Update, Here & Abroad. Infoplease, November 8, 2007. <http//www. infoplease. com/spot/deathworld1. hypertext mark-up language> 9. Hood, Roger, The Death Penalty A World-wide Perspective. 2002. Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002. 10. Human Rights Watch, Iraq Saddam Hussein put to Death. Hanging after flawed trial undermines the rule of law. December 2006. Human Rights News. November 10, 2007 < http//hrw. org/ position/docs/2006/12/30/iraq14950. htm > 11. John Howard Society of Ontario, The Death Penalty Any Nations Shame. March, 2001, John Howard Society of Ontario publication. November 8, 2007 < www. johnhowardphd. ca/PDFs/Fact%20Sheets/death%20penalty. pdf > 12. Nina, Martin, Innocence illogical, November 2004, San Francisco Magazine, November 9, 2007, < http//www. sanfran. com/archives/view_story/200/ > 13. Philip J. Cook & Donna B. Slawson, The Costs of Prosecuti ng Murder Cases in coupling Carolina. 1993 14. The South African Constitutional Court, Makwanyane and Mchunu v. The State, 16 HRLJ, 1995. 15. United Nations High Commission for Human Rights Resolution, E/CN. 4/1997, April 3, 1997.