Tuesday, May 8, 2007
"The death penalty is NOT a deterrent, it IS murder." Do you agree?Capital punishment has been executed for centuries and the implementation of it has aroused the public's concern. "What exactly is the purpose for a death penalty?" This is the common question asked by the majority. Is it to assure the public that the felon no longer poses a threat to the society? Or is it an "eye for an eye" form of retributive justice? Country leaders will tell us that capital punishment actually serves as a form of deterrent warning to others against the consequences of crime so as to prevent repeated offences. But is death penalty really a deterrent or is it murder?
There are many methods of execution varying from the ancient method of crucifixion to the modern method of lethal injection. Let us backtrack and look at the different methods of execution carried out in the olden days.
-Crucifixion (The criminal was tied or nailed to a large wooden cross and left to hang there until death.) -Impalement (The criminal is pierced by a long stake. The penetration can be through the sides, from the rectum, or possibly through the mouth. The stake would be usually planted in the ground, leaving the individual hanging to die.) -Criminals are burnt alive -Stoning(People hurl stones at the criminal) -Drowning -Tearing asunder(The hands, legs and head of the criminal are tied to 5 horses respectively and are tore apart as horses galloped in different directions.) -BeheadingSnapping back to reality, we shall see what are the execution methods of today.
-Hanging -Poison gas chamber -electric chair(2300Volts) -Lethal injection -Firing squadLooking at the above capital punishments, I believe that no one will ever want to die in such a gruesome manner.Thus,before anyone commits a crime, they will be reminded of the consequences and will then think twice. In such way, capital punishment is serving as a deterrent as it prevents repeated offences.Well; I agree that capital punishment is a deterrent, but only to a small extent.
There are people who will not be disturbed by the punishment they will receive, as they are already prepared to die when committing a crime. Take Cho Seung Hui, the US gunman who carried out a massacre in Virginia Tech University recently and committed suicide after the rampage, as an example. Do you think that he be afraid of the death sentence if he was still alive? My answer is no. People like Cho are weak psychologically, they commit crimes to attract the attention of people as they may be feeling lonely in this world.Hence, if we were to execute them, we are actually indirectly helping them to "fulfill" their wish because their names are now glorified. This may encourage copycat crimes as criminal is seen as a martyr by some people.
Many people will agree that the modern methods of execution are more humane than the ancient ones.However, I beg to differ. Ancient execution methods were mostly instant deaths for the criminals. The modern methods cause criminals to suffer mentally and die in agony, even though they may seem to be less horrifying than the ancient methods. But in actual fact, the modern execution methods often leave criminals an undignified death. Criminals are blindfolded before they are hanged to prevent their eyeballs from dropping out as the impact of the shock is too great.Sometimes, criminals may vomit, pee or even poo.The process of their death is also prolonged and they will have to struggle mentally as they countdown to their death. (For instance, criminals will die slowly through lethal injection as it will take a long time for the poison to circulate the whole body system.)Is it actually fair for them to die in such a way? Criminals, too have their human rights, they should not be deprived of a dignified death. It is too cruel to take away a life like that, even if he is a murderer, as this is no different from murder.
Human cannot play God. They are in no position to take away a person's life. It is cliché to believe in the phrase” a life for a life" as two wrongs do not make a right. The execution of these criminals may preserve national security and it is more economically sound to execute the prisoner than keep him in life incarceration as he will be living off taxpayers' dollars. But isn't it more beneficial for the society if the prisoner was given a chance to turn over a new leaf and is able to contribute to the country in the future? Moreover, people may not commit capital crime out of willingness. Why would people traffic drugs when they know that they will get a death sentence if caught? It is mainly because poverty has driven them into the corners and out of desparation, they traffic drugs to earn money. In such a scenario, it is unfair for them to face capital punishments as they have no other way out but to resort to committing crimes if they want to survive.
Without taking their intention and circumstances into consideration, it is cruel to sentence them to death and this is equivalent to murder. It is undeniable that capital punishment does serve as a deterrent to prevent crimes but how effective is it? There are still many people out in this world committing capital crimes and this has thus proven the ineffectiveness of capital punishment being a deterrent. Thus, I conclude that capital punishment is more of murder than a deterrent.
the world will turn WILD.
12:22 AM
|
