In ancient Greece, from 1200-800 B.C., all families of victims had the right to punish murderers and kill them themselves, or the families were able to ask them for monetary compensation for their satisfaction. Then, communities and public sectors started involving the punishments later. (Blecher, 2006). On the other hand, more than eighty nations have eradicated the death penalty recently. Many countries still have a legal death penalty system, but they hardly ever carry it out. Only four countries worldwide practice frequent executions. (Quindlen, 2006). Historically, people have been reducing the number of death penalties, and they have a logical reason to do so. The death penalty may kill innocent people and hide truths of crimes. Also, the end of the death penalty benefits a society and solves personal mental problems. Some people look at different positive aspects of the death penalty, so this essay will solve their misunderstanding. Now is a time to eliminate all executions all over the world.
First of all, the death penalty may kill innocent people. In the United States, more than a thousand prisoners were executed, and also 123 death-row inmates have appeared to be innocent and gone back to society since 1976. (Quindlen, 2006). It was possible that courts misjudged and killed innocent people. Some people say the death penalty is a symbol for potential criminals and will prevent illegal actions. However, if a court kills innocent people, it means they are a murderer as well and they are not able to announce judgment with a trustful reputation. On one hand, the number of released people means there were real criminals who were free in a society instead of innocent people. It is a terrible situation for everyone. Citizens have to live in fear, victims or their family cannot feel comfortable, and a person faces an unexpected death, because of false accusation. Then, if a court kills innocent people, they cannot complain again and it would be difficult for other people to restore their honor either. Even if true criminals are free in society, people are not able to notice it. The death penalty may kill innocent people and release criminals into a society, where they do not have to fear further prosecution.
Furthermore, dead people are not able to talk, but people can talk and provide information while they are alive. In a case of real criminals as well, while prisoners are alive in cells, they can talk. That means investigators are able to use them to gather information about crimes. They know their criminal world and black market better than police officers. They represent characteristics of criminals that support analyzing other crimes. Their information improves the quality of investigation and cuts the time and costs. Some people claim public expenditure to keep prisoners in the cells is too costly (Greenberg, 2006), but if their information supports an investigation, it would benefit the society. Moreover, those people in prisons are labourers who contribute to the economy of their countries. They work for very low wages that provide better service and reduce extra costs for the society. The criminals in prisons benefit the society economically, as sources of information and cheap labour. The end of the death penalty benefits a society. Additionally, a crowded prison prevents ex-prisoners coming back there. (Greenberg, 2006). That means if people eliminate the death penalty and keep criminals in a prison, leaving it crowded, it reduces the crime rate on the outside and improves the society. Yet, there is no proof that the death penalty prevents crimes, even though humanity has had it for thousands of years.
If a society wants to continue the death penalty, they need someone to practice it. The death penalty is the same as “parents hit their children to teach them that hitting is a bad thing” (Quindlen, 2006). It does not eliminate murders. As long as parents hit their children or a society has a capital punishment system, people must have executioners. Moreover, no normal parents want to hit their children when they do nothing wrong. No executioner wants to kill people who do nothing wrong. Still courts may announce wrong judgment, and people cannot eradicate false accusations. No one should force the executioner to kill someone who might not be a criminal. Especially, when the majority of citizens tend to feel relief when a criminal is judged and incarcerated, but they just as quickly forget about it. It is only in Texas that about 150 prisoners do not have lawyers for postconviction counsel. (Steiker, S. C., & Steiker, M. J., 2006). Executioners are not able to forget about it if they killed innocent people. They should be released from such mental stress.
In addition, victims and their families should be free from worrying. Because no one wants to die, even real criminals tend to complain against the judgment and they never admit to their crimes. This means their victims have to live with fears that real criminals are still in a city, or that criminals might come back to the city. Victims cannot feel comfortable until the judge has sentenced the accused. In the case of murders, the victim’s family knows what losing their family means. They do not want innocent people to die by the death penalty. The death penalty is against social morals by forcing executioners to murder, and leaving victims and their families uncomfortable.
Historically, the world is moving towards eliminating the death penalty. It is reasonable in terms of human rights, costs effectiveness and social morals. We must not kill innocent people, and think about positive aspects of locking prisoners in jails. Then, executioners, victims and their families would be free from that anxiety. It is the time to end all capital punishment, and make it a page of world history.
First of all, the death penalty may kill innocent people. In the United States, more than a thousand prisoners were executed, and also 123 death-row inmates have appeared to be innocent and gone back to society since 1976. (Quindlen, 2006). It was possible that courts misjudged and killed innocent people. Some people say the death penalty is a symbol for potential criminals and will prevent illegal actions. However, if a court kills innocent people, it means they are a murderer as well and they are not able to announce judgment with a trustful reputation. On one hand, the number of released people means there were real criminals who were free in a society instead of innocent people. It is a terrible situation for everyone. Citizens have to live in fear, victims or their family cannot feel comfortable, and a person faces an unexpected death, because of false accusation. Then, if a court kills innocent people, they cannot complain again and it would be difficult for other people to restore their honor either. Even if true criminals are free in society, people are not able to notice it. The death penalty may kill innocent people and release criminals into a society, where they do not have to fear further prosecution.
Furthermore, dead people are not able to talk, but people can talk and provide information while they are alive. In a case of real criminals as well, while prisoners are alive in cells, they can talk. That means investigators are able to use them to gather information about crimes. They know their criminal world and black market better than police officers. They represent characteristics of criminals that support analyzing other crimes. Their information improves the quality of investigation and cuts the time and costs. Some people claim public expenditure to keep prisoners in the cells is too costly (Greenberg, 2006), but if their information supports an investigation, it would benefit the society. Moreover, those people in prisons are labourers who contribute to the economy of their countries. They work for very low wages that provide better service and reduce extra costs for the society. The criminals in prisons benefit the society economically, as sources of information and cheap labour. The end of the death penalty benefits a society. Additionally, a crowded prison prevents ex-prisoners coming back there. (Greenberg, 2006). That means if people eliminate the death penalty and keep criminals in a prison, leaving it crowded, it reduces the crime rate on the outside and improves the society. Yet, there is no proof that the death penalty prevents crimes, even though humanity has had it for thousands of years.
If a society wants to continue the death penalty, they need someone to practice it. The death penalty is the same as “parents hit their children to teach them that hitting is a bad thing” (Quindlen, 2006). It does not eliminate murders. As long as parents hit their children or a society has a capital punishment system, people must have executioners. Moreover, no normal parents want to hit their children when they do nothing wrong. No executioner wants to kill people who do nothing wrong. Still courts may announce wrong judgment, and people cannot eradicate false accusations. No one should force the executioner to kill someone who might not be a criminal. Especially, when the majority of citizens tend to feel relief when a criminal is judged and incarcerated, but they just as quickly forget about it. It is only in Texas that about 150 prisoners do not have lawyers for postconviction counsel. (Steiker, S. C., & Steiker, M. J., 2006). Executioners are not able to forget about it if they killed innocent people. They should be released from such mental stress.
In addition, victims and their families should be free from worrying. Because no one wants to die, even real criminals tend to complain against the judgment and they never admit to their crimes. This means their victims have to live with fears that real criminals are still in a city, or that criminals might come back to the city. Victims cannot feel comfortable until the judge has sentenced the accused. In the case of murders, the victim’s family knows what losing their family means. They do not want innocent people to die by the death penalty. The death penalty is against social morals by forcing executioners to murder, and leaving victims and their families uncomfortable.
Historically, the world is moving towards eliminating the death penalty. It is reasonable in terms of human rights, costs effectiveness and social morals. We must not kill innocent people, and think about positive aspects of locking prisoners in jails. Then, executioners, victims and their families would be free from that anxiety. It is the time to end all capital punishment, and make it a page of world history.