The Death Penalty Debate: An Argumentative Analysis

The topic of the death penalty or capital punishment has been one of controversy for a very long time now. The practice, which began many centuries ago, has seen various societies execute criminals for different capital offenses or crimes. In those countries where the death penalty is allowed, offenses such as genocide, war crimes, treason, crimes against humanity, espionage, and murder are considered punishable by death. While some countries still have the death penalty, there are those that have abolished it completely and others that only allow it under certain special circumstances. This paper is an argumentative essay about death penalty and it argues that a death penalty is an appropriate form of punishment and therefore the practice should be upheld. The reasons for this are that, death penalty helps to control behavior through instilling the fear of pain in people, it ensures that the victims get justice, the maintenance and security costs are reduced for the government, and most importantly, it helps prevent repeat attacks in cases where a terrorist or hijacker has been imprisoned. However, in doing this, considerations have to be made about some special circumstances. Some of these include where the accused is a victim of circumstances like in the case of young children forcefully recruited into terrorism, or where a fair trial was not done to determine the connection of the victim to the crime.

The death penalty can instill the fear of pain in people and therefore help to control behavior. In other words, the penalty has a deterrent effect on capital crime. In his study, Ehrlich found out that there is a direct relationship between capital punishment and the reduction of capital crimes. The mere thought of the pain that has to be endured during an execution, usually makes most potential offenders to reconsider everything before committing similar crimes. Similarly, Block compares the effect of the death penalty to “the principle of downward sloping demand” in economics where he points out that, the fact that people have to pay for crime using their lives makes the tendency to commit the same to go down. Ideally, real executions do reduce the rates of murder. The fact that the death penalty is more severe and effective compared to a life sentence is evidenced by the numerous desperate attempts made by death-row convicts to either delay their executions or have them overturned. The two studies are further supported by the classical theory of criminology whereby the fear of pain is considered the best tool for controlling the behavior of human beings. When all these are put into consideration, the death penalty plays a big role in controlling the rate of crime.

Death penalty enables the victims of crime to get justice. One common and the often repeated argument is that a person who deliberately takes someone else’s life does not deserve to live. This is very true, especially in cases where the one committing the crime is in their right state of mind. For example, it would be very unfair for a murderer or rapist to be pardoned for their crimes given the effect such an act would have on the victims. Even though some studies have shown that the death penalty does not bring closure to the victims and their families, there is at least some amount of satisfaction that comes with knowing that the perpetrators of such crimes are not left to wander freely where they could commit the same crimes again. An example of such a case is the one about the brutal murder of James Byrd in the hands of Lawrence Rusell and the other two men in 2011. Given the gruesomeness of the murder, which was later found to be racially charged, the three were charged for capital crimes. Almost everyone that had an idea about the murder considered the death penalties the appropriate punishment for the three since it would avenge the death in some way.

The maintenance and security costs are reduced for the government through death penalties. In his article, Evnenotes that the main reason people oppose the death penalty is the decades of appeal associated with them that usually result in the government spending much. Ideally, the article points out that ironically, the unnecessary delays are a creation of the same people who complain about them. Considering that the criminal defendants facing a possible death penalty are given a long time to appeal, many do take advantage of the process and plead guilty to first-degree murder. In the process, many are sentenced to life without parole instead of the death sentence. When everything is considered, the presence of the death penalty is a good thing since it increases the chances of guilty pleas, which in turn mean fewer trials and appeals, hence saving the money that could be spent on the two. Besides, if care is taken to pursue the appeal responsibly and ethically, then there will be a high likelihood of the cost of executing being lower as compared to that of providing food, clothes and other necessities for murderers and rapists for their whole lives. Notably, keeping any criminal under confinement is no cheaper task since in most cases, many will try to appeal, regardless of whether they are those convicts facing life without parole or those facing a possible death penalty. 

Closely related to the first point is the idea that a death penalty will help prevent repeat attacks in cases where a terrorist or hijacker has been imprisoned. For a very long time, it has almost become a norm to witness terrorists take hostages whose lives have to be exchanged for that of another imprisoned terrorist or their leaders. One such case is the recent release of an American military hostage named Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl who had been held by the Taliban in Afghanistan. In exchange, the United States government released five Afghan detainees. Such a case usually puts a government in an awkward position where it has to negotiate with militant groups or else lose innocent people. With the death penalty, however, this can be avoided and possibly even instill some fear amongst the members of the militant or terrorist group. With the imprisoned members dead, they would have nothing to negotiate with and possibly look for an alternative way that may not necessarily endanger people’s lives.

Even though the death penalty is necessary for dealing with capital crime, some situations may call for such a punishment to be reconsidered. For instance, there are cases where young people have been lured or forced to join terrorist groups without their consent. Samuel notes that 15 percent of armed military groups all over the world use children under the age of fifteen years as child soldiers. In such cases, the children might have been forced or lured by being provided with some basic needs. While this does not justify the killings and rapes they take part in, it brings to question the helplessness of the young and clueless criminals. In such cases, a death penalty might be too harsh, especially if the criminals are not given a second chance to change. The other situation where the practice of the death sentence should be relaxed is where execution is done without any trial. According to a report by Merrill, it was noted that people in the Middle East are exposed to unfair trials or no trials at all in some cases, before being prosecuted. The most notorious countries include Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. This evidence points to the fact that proper trial and investigation are necessary before giving any accused person a death sentence.

To conclude, there is a very thin line between what is right and wrong when it comes to the subject of the death penalty. It is true that a death penalty has a deterrence effect in murder cases, ensures victims of crime get justice, saving the maintenance and security costs for the government, and preventing repeat attacks. However, with all these positives, there is a need to look at first time young offenders who may have been pushed into crimes. Also, proper and thorough trials and investigations should determine the applicability of the death penalty or not.