By Amin Kef Sesay
Both religious and secular debates continue about whether it is moral for humans to kill one another, even in the name of justice, and whether executing people makes for a moral and just Government.
One of the main justifications for maintaining a death penalty is that the punishment may prevent people from committing crimes so as to not risk being sentenced to death.
Proponents of the death penalty say it is an important tool for preserving law and order, deters crime, and costs less than life imprisonment.
They argue that retribution or “an eye for an eye” honors the victim, helps console grieving families, and ensures that the perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause future tragedy.
One of the main justifications for maintaining a death penalty is that the punishment may prevent people from committing crimes so as to not risk being sentenced to death.
Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to capital crimes state that such a harsh penalty is needed to discourage people from murder and terrorism.
Opponents of capital punishment say it has no deterrent effect on crime, wrongly gives Governments the power to take human life and perpetuates social injustices by disproportionately targeting people who cannot afford good Attorneys or Lawyers. They say lifetime jail sentences are a more severe and less expensive punishment than death.
Opponents of the death penalty argue that the punishment is cruel and unusual, and, thus, unconstitutional, that innocent people are put to death for crimes they did not commit.
Life without Parole is suggested by some as an alternative punishment for the death penalty. Proponents of replacing the death penalty with life without parole argue that imprisoning someone for the duration of their life is more humane than the death penalty, that LWOP is a more fitting penalty that allows the criminal to think about what they’ve done, and that LWOP reduces the chances of executing an innocent person.
Opponents who argue that the death penalty is not needed as retribution argue that reformative justice is more productive, that innocent people are often killed in the search for retribution, and that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
Whether the death penalty can bring about some sort of closure or solace to the victims’ families after a horrible, life-changing experience has long been debated and used by both proponents and opponents of the death penalty.
Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed to bring about closure and solace to victims’ families argue that the finality of the death penalty is needed for families to move on and not live in fear of the criminal getting out of prison.
