Is the death penalty needed as a means of punishment?

Imagine that someone you know and love has just been sentenced to death. I'd like to invite you to think about that for a second. How would you feel? 

Some of you might feel a plethora of emotions: anger, sadness, confusion. Others here may feel helplessness. Or injustice. The problem is that although we are merely imagining this thought, millions of innocent individuals are actually being faced with the inevitable consequence that one of their loved ones is going to have their life brutally cut short. 

Before embarking on this critically controversial debate, I will try to give a brief explanation of where the death penalty originated, and the different forms that it took on as society changed. Officially, it was first used in the Ancient Babylon society, in the 18th century BC. However, it was first widely employed in Ancient Greece under the laws of Draco, around 7th century BC. The Romans also used it at around the same time for a wide range of offenses, such as murder, rape, theft and arson. The premature types of the death penalty were designed to be slow, painful, and torturous. Later on, criminals were also put to death by stoning, crucifixion, being burned at the stake, and even slowly being crushed by elephants. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the death penalty commonly adopted the forms of hanging and beheading using the infamous guillotine. Fortunately, England and Wales decided to completely abolish the death penalty (this happened in 1965.) Conversely, in America, 27 states, such as Kansas, Ohio and Arizona, still retain this horrendous form of punishment. The nature of the exact punishment varies from state to state, with some choosing to administer lethal injections, whilst others use electrocution.

Firstly, I believe that the death penalty is an outdated, merciless and unjust method of punishment. I think that the death penalty is an extraordinarily heartless and abhorrant punishment, where basic standards of human dignity are compromised and undermined. I also argue further that it goes against what I believe is our most fundamental human right, that being the right to life. Furthermore, is it right for fearful family members, jurors and judges involved in the harsh proceedings of the death penalty case to face these terrors forever? In addition, although some of you may not be religious, there are strong religious arguments condemning the death penalty. A clear example can be seen in the Ten Commandments that are the key principles underlying some of the world religions today, “thou shalt not kill.” Additionally, isn't it a form of state hypocrisy to be administering the death penalty? 

Additionally, I definitely believe that there are much better, fairer, less cruel and more effective ways of dealing with offenders. For instance, I firmly believe in rehabilitation. Mercilessly killing perpetrators via the death penalty eliminates any prospect of letting them have a second chance, a chance to improve and the chance to make amends. Studies have actually shown that the rehabilitative method of dealing with criminals has more effective outcomes than that of other methods of punishment. For example, Norway moved its focus from punishment to rehabilitation 20 years ago. This was followed by large reductions in reoffending rates. Compared to a reoffending rate of around 50% in the UK, Norway’s is around 25% (which is the lowest rate in the world.) Furthermore, research has also shown that the death penalty does not make people fear crime any more than ordinary punishment would. Some may also argue that jailing a prisoner for life is a far worse form of torture.

Thirdly, another extremely strong argument against the death penalty is that it may result in irreversible miscarriages of justice. There are many factors that contribute to wrongful convictions time and time again in criminal cases, like: erroneous eyewitness identifications, falsified and coerced confessions, inadequate legal defense, faked or misleading forensic evidence, false accusations or perjury committed by witnesses who are promised lenient treatment or other incentives in exchange for their testimony. If the case in question is a death penalty case, these factors may lead to the deaths of innocent victims. Since 1973, more than 170 people who had been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in the U.S. have been exonerated. An example of a wrongful imprisonment was the “Birmingham Six” This was a group of six men who steadfastly maintained their innocence. In dramatic scenes outside the Old Bailey in 1991, The Six were exonerated for their supposed crimes of murder. They had each spent 16 years in prison for crimes that they had not committed, and their case is one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in British history. There can be little doubt that if the death penalty had not been abolished at the time of their trials, these men would have most definitely been sentenced to death. Even Lord Denning – one of the most prominent judges of the 20th Century – suggested that the Birmingham Six should have been hanged. If this had been the case, then they would have joined Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans, among countless others, on the list of blameless people that have been wrongfully executed by the death penalty.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the death penalty is the cheapest, quickest, easiest and “most effective” way of punishing perpetrators. There are arguments regarding the fact that, especially in developing countries, where both finances and resources for prisoners are both extremely limited, the death penalty is the most cost effective way to deal with offenders. However, the death penalty does not save any additional money. A death penalty case is vastly more expensive to prosecute than a standard murder case. Most dealth penalty trials are actually two trials – one to determine whether the person is guilty of said sentence, and the second to determine whether the sentence of the death penalty is appropriate for the defendant and the crime. Death Penalty cases also consume vast amounts of county, court, judicial, and law enforcement resources. Also, is it morally right to put a price on human life? Another argument also put forward in favour of the death penalty is that it is the most utilitarian form of punishment, because it is claimed that the death penalty is the most effective way of keeping society safe from dangerous individuals, ie, the death penalty is acting in the interests of the greater good by preserving society's safety, and promoting society’s wellbeing. This can be countered by the fact that life imprisonment for prisoners also achieves this goal, and arguably does so more effectively. Finally, one can argue that the death penalty is the most effective way to fulfil the criteria of retribution that punishment aims to serve, in other words the Biblical phrase “an eye for an eye.” This retributive idea of justice seeks to inflict a cost or hardship on the criminal as a just response to their crime. However, I still maintain that the rehabilitation model is more effective and just, in the sense that it seeks to provide support that can reform the criminal.

In conclusion, whilst there are some compelling arguments put forward for employing the death penalty as a form of punishment, I strongly affirm that it is definitely neither the most equitable method, nor the most effective method.