Every time the issue of capital punishment or in other words the death penalty is mentioned, it generates heated arguments amongst the pro-lifers and those who support it in regard to its effectiveness as a corrective measure. This form of punishment was used since time immemorial and is still applicable in modern times despite a considerable amount controversy. One argument that motivates the pro lifers is the vulnerability of innocent suspects to suffering executions but aspects such as biblical justification, a burden on the taxpayers in feeding inmates and total justice meaning an eye for an eye, hold lots of weight for supporters of this type of punishment. From those remarks as portrayed by supporters of capital punishment, it is therefore appropriate to posit a thesis statement that declares the death penalty as the best form of justice given to both the victims of murder and the murderer (Hugo, 2003).
Pro-lifers are known to passionately dispute the doctrines that justify the application of death punishment on grounds such as the possibility of discriminating against the suspect for malicious gains (Enyart, 2007). The biggest factor at this juncture is generally embodied in the issue of race. They believe that racial segregation can motivate an urge to execute amongst those with power (row, 2006). In the US for instance, research has pointed towards great strides being made towards discriminating against black offenders. Whites on death sentence amount to 45% while blacks amount to 42% sending mixed signals in regard to the total population. In addition black people, as studied in Philadelphia, are most likely to end up on death row as compared to a lower probability of white offenders (Chandler, 2010).
Blacks killing whites are also more likely to receive capital punishment and the reverse is true. The second platform on which pro-lifers dwell their argument is the possibility of an innocent suspect being executed bearing in mind that death is irreversible (Marshall, 2006). This allegation is seemingly worth the bargain but its occurrences are spread far apart having only occurred in the states of Maine and Rhode Island where by punishment death was abolished after authorities certified that they had punished innocent men by death and nothing could be done to revoke the rulings. Therefore on that note the argument remains in favor of life imprisonment other than using another wrong to correct a prior one as shown in the above states (Banner, 2005).
As public opinion on this matter continues to emerge, the two opposing sides are definitely bracing for the spoils (Naik, 2010) The above aspects are therefore subject to hot debates as supporters of death penalties hold the belief that due to the increase in technological prowess and scientific transformations it is very hard to wrongfully implicate a suspect when he or she is innocent. Since the arrival of finger prints technology and closed circuit cameras, we can comfortably agree that it is so hard to execute innocent victims (Hugo, 2003). The scarcity of similar cases on the global scale is another implication that the cases really are not rampant with little or no proof. In addition it is believed that there is some room for some mistakes in applying judgment where justice is defined as punishing murderers even if some would go unscathed and protecting the innocent even if only a portion would be protected because life is sacred (Go, 2010).
Thosewho support the death penalty are also of the opinion that once an individual commits murder then he or she no longer qualifies to coexist with other human beings (Naik, 2010) Due to the imbalance created by removal of one member of the society, the plight of the murderer is no longer important and he should face death as a punishment at all cost (Avery, 2010) This means that regardless of whether he is black or white his fate is usually sealed. The issue of race here is overlooked under the justification that suspects are accorded enough time to prepare for their deaths and are also given constitutional rights by their attorneys as opposed to the victims they murdered and thus race becomes a non issue (Blair, 2010).
In a society whereby masses rely on religious guidance such as this one, reference made from religious sources such as the bible become unavoidable. The bible is on record as being on the frontline in campaigning for retribution through the various chapters and symbolisms depicted in it (Avery, 2010). For instance the book of Exodus (21: 23-25), it is clearly stipulated that whoever commits murder, witchcraft or curses his parents should be subjected to death. But the main section of emphasis remains the vengeful part that advocates for an eye for an eye especially in situations of murder (Pojman & Reiman, 1998). One is supposed to be murdered in return if he is found guilty of murder and with this in mind arguing with the word of God especially for believers, is rendered illogical since God is the most powerful being. Although these verses meet some contradiction in the New Testament where Jesus was against vengeance the former holds more weight and is likely to rid our communities of potential murderers as they will be wiped out completely from our streets (Dudley, 1997).
Thus as the bible stipulates, death penalty is a morally qualified avenue of punishment where the society is handed the responsibility and permission to take the lives of those perceived and rightly proved to be murderers. Statistics have shown that death penalties have considerably reduced crime rates by great amounts in places where it is still existent other than those areas where it is abolished. This is propagated by the induction of fear into would be criminals since all human beings are known to be wary of death even when it is not for punishment purposes. On the other hand solitary confinement of suspects is regarded by some pro-capital punishment followers as being so harsh. This is due to the fact that the criminal will never be free again and has to bear the consequences of his acts for the rest of his life and therefore freeing the prisoner from this ordeal becomes instrumental and that’s by a death penalty. These issues therefore, narrow down to our main objective here which is saving the taxpayer the pain of having to carter for the upkeep of a prisoner who committed a heinous crime. There is no point in spending lots of money on someone who is a threat to the society and an outlaw for that matter (Tanner, 2007).
The issue of totality in application of justice is bound to arise at this point in form of the kind of punishment given to criminals in proportion to the magnitude of the crimes he committed. Considering an eye for an eye executing a murderer is at par with his criminal act and is therefore a justified approach. This will ensure that the nation is saved the pain of having to keep these inmates uunder hectic arrangements that sometimes see an inmate spending the specified 12years behind bars awaiting his final judgment and that translates to a life term in jail being provided with all the basic needs. Ensuring total justice by way of executing criminals is also bound to rid the streets of potential murderers who might be back at it after spending sometime behind bars. It is worth noting that most criminals on our roads are not first time offenders and will be ready to multiply their criminal acts provided they are set free and only imminent death can intimidate them into law abiding citizens (Messerli, 2010).
To add on, it remains a fact that death penalty is likely to be justified considering that statistics favor its use for crime reduction and society’s role is clearly outlined. Since society is under the obligation to apply the strongest method in eliminating the vice, it is therefore apparent that the strongest form of punishment is also applied in order to maintain a balanced approach to the issue of murder. The only form of correction that seems effective, especially for murder suspects, remains to be death penalty (Radelet & Akers, 1995). Just as a robber is held away in prison to avoid further robberies those who support this punishment are of the idea that any murderer should also be subjected to a similar treatment that entails murder to avoid further murder cases. It is worth mentioning that some criminals tend to continue with their murderous spree in jail since no further judgment can be placed on them. This too calls for immediate action that entails execution to protect the society as a whole and also inmates (Michigan, 2000).
In conclusion the death penalty can be termed as a useful deterrent to crime activities hence greatly reducing potential crime activities. It is beyond a shadow of doubt that this form of penalty has been replete with controversies since time immemorial. Even though it has its fair share of misgivings that include suspects undergoing hectic and money consuming ordeals in pursuit of justice, the tendency of a dispensation of premeditated vengeance through the jury and/or the society, and harshly targeting the poor people, the colored population and the weak majority, the death penalty seemingly remains the best option as seen from its authoritative presence and scaring of potential murder suspects. Respecting the value of human life should not be one side and should apply to both the criminal and the victim.
Criminals should therefore not expect leniency from the society on humanitarian grounds after they have violated lives of other people. In addition some conservative Christians remain of the opinion of execution not only to murderers but also homosexuals. This implies the depth of passion that majority posses in relation to death penalties and religious affiliation such as Christianity. In my opinion getting rid of the suspected murderer remains the best option and no humanitarian approach should be applied to those who have inflicted pain on families and squeezed life out of others without giving them a humane treatment or chance. In as much as it may be perceived as barbaric, there is no philosophical approach which can be used to justify the perpetrator’s action. No universal law can exonerate a murderer since he or she cannot restore the life he took. It is in this context that such individuals should not be spared (Banner, 2002).