Yiceth Salgado Bello.

Academic Writing.
Septembre 19, 2017.

Is the death penalty the best solution to punish criminals?

The death penalty is one of the most mentioned topics in recent years. Although it has existed

since antiquity, it is currently very renowned as it is remarkable how one can enter controversy

with ease when speaking about it. It can be considered that a nation that wants to put an end to

crime, killings, homicides and other illegal activities must give way to the death penalty. However,

we must also consider that a crime is not solved by putting an end to the life of the person who

committed it because, in one way or another, the right to life prevails over everything. For a country

to reduce its crime rate considerably it is important that strict measures be taken with results that

are effective without having to ignore the rights of the perpetrator.

The death penalty takes its roots from the first centuries of humanity. Based on religious laws

or the so-called "Law of Talon: Life for Life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", the death

sentence of anyone who committed a crime that exceeded the criteria stipulated at that time, was

carried out. Greece was the first country to adopt this law and it was in that way that justice was

practiced. Currently, there are 58 countries where the death penalty is established within its legal

system. One of those countries is the United States, where 30 of its 50 states adopted this model of

justice. Although the death penalty rules in most of the states of that country, it does not stop

generating controversy in the states that still maintain arguments against this law. This is precisely

the central point of this topic, the polemic. Apart from the biblical arguments which in some way

greatly influence the decision on whether or not to apply the death penalty, there is also a judicial

argument called "exercise of legitimate defense". This argument maintains that, because the victim

of the crime can no longer exercise his legitimate defense before the attacker, it is society that

1
Yiceth Salgado Bello.
Academic Writing.
Septembre 19, 2017.
must do it in his place. For this reason, it is considered that the death penalty is just and necessary

for both the victim and the perpetrator.

On the one hand, there are several arguments that invalidate the approval of the death penalty.

One of them is that the death penalty does not reduce the crime rate nor the number of offenders.

If this were the case, in countries where the death penalty is practiced, the rate of crimes committed

would be very minimal and this would be decreed in most countries, if not all. In addition to this,

it is estimated that if the State of a country gives the endorsement to carry out the death penalty,

the universal right of human rights would be violated: the right to life. Considering this, the UN

Secretary-General says: "I want to launch an appeal to all States that continue to implement this

barbaric practice: please put an end to the executions. A death sentence is of little use to the victims,

and does not serve to prevent crimes". Guterres, A. (2017, February 11). The UN against the death

penalty. Asianews.it. Making it clear that it is not about solving the problem by going over the

rights already stipulated, which should be respected whatever the reasons. In this way, the UN

considers that the right to life takes precedence over everything, and that making a criminal pay

with his life for a crime he committed is not the best option and will in no way prevent them from

committing crimes.

On the other hand, it should be noted that there is a degree of equivalence between the

arguments of each party. However, the issue under discussion has a high level of seriousness

because it is about doing justice on behalf of someone who has been the victim of a crime, but the

life of the guilty party is also involved. In any case, a solution must be sought where justice is

reflected, and at the same time the right to life of the individual is not violated. It is clear that the

criminal must pay the price for infringing the law and for causing secondary damage to the people

close to the victim. For that reason, a coherent and rational proposal to give another direction to

2
Yiceth Salgado Bello.
Academic Writing.
Septembre 19, 2017.
this problem is that the State leave to consideration of the relatives of the victim the fate of the

culprit, putting as an option the life imprisonment or the number of years of prison stipulated by

the Court Supreme of Justice.

In summary, although the death penalty is not a new issue, it remains a source of controversy

for many people and in many places. There are those who consider that the end of crime and crimes

depends on the approval of the death penalty. But there are also those who respect the right to life

and opt for other types of solutions to carry out justice. Even though it is not an easy subject of

debate, the death penalty has its advantages and disadvantages like all things. However, there are

universal rights that were stipulated many years ago and the first of those rights is the right to life.

Therefore, although there are many reasons to approve the death penalty, it must be considered that

this right is fundamental and that it cannot be violated whatever the reasons may be. Despite the

crime committed by the culprit, no one has the authority to end his life because that being so, the

other rights will also be broken. That is why we must seek solutions that do not violate the rights

of the person involved but in turn reflect justice.