The Death Penalty: Pro and Con

Officially, thousands of people are sentenced to death every year in countries where the death penalty
is practiced. The death penalty is still prevalent in many parts of the world, especially in the Middle East,
Asia, and North Africa, with notable countries including Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and the
USA.

Given the prevalence of the death penalty in the modern world, it is fair to assume that there are
perhaps justifications for it, though there are plenty of people who categorically oppose it. Without
going into the details of any given judicial system, there are number of reasons to support both sides of
the argument.

There are a number of practical arguments made for the death penalty. Because the death penalty is
such a powerful construct, many argue that it decreases crime rates through deterrence. While many
believe that the death penalty is more of a deterrent than a lengthy prison sentence, the very concept of
‘deterrence’ is argued by many as inapplicable to criminal psychology, especially if mental illness is
involved. Criminals rarely think about the consequences of their actions and this is especially true with
crimes of passion.

By killing felons, the death penalty removes the burden of housing them within the penitentiary system.
Prison overcrowding and overstretched resources are key issues in prisons in many countries. Due to the
severity of prisoners’ crimes on death row, it costs much more to feed, house, and seclude these often
dangerous inmates than if they were simply put to death. And if they were paroled, there is always the
chance they could re-offend, which is completely eliminated with the death penalty. The concept of
retribution, that the perpetrator is punished in a manner fitting to the crime, is also used to support the
death penalty.

There are many arguments against the death penalty that are both practical and ethical. It is very
difficult to know the exact moral status of the death penalty, though many see it to be a degrading,
barbaric, and amoral. The opponents of the death penalty argue that it causes incredible suffering and
pain for the sentenced and brutalizes society as a whole where it operates. Both of these factors could
have negative effects on crime and criminality. The vast majority of people would at least argue that
human life is highly valuable and should be preserved, though the extent at which preservation should
make-way for retribution is where things become very debatable.

Misconduct in institutional systems can also lead to incorrect sentencing. While this is bad enough for
non-death sentencing, these constitute a heinous breach of justice if the death penalty is involved. A
psychological argument that may become prominent in the future is the concept of self-control and free
will. Do we have free will or not? If not, this could bring into question not just the death penalty but all
forms of sentencing whether it is capital punishment or not. New neurological research can now predict
the likelihood of someone becoming violent and may help with future awareness on these issues.

From a global perspective, far fewer countries operate the death penalty when compared to countries
that don’t. More importantly, there appears to be a general reduction in the number of death sentences
even in the countries continuing to uphold the death penalty.

It is arguable that countries still using the death penalty do so purely in response to criminality and try to
deter future criminals with it. Ironically, many of the countries that have the death penalty suffer from
higher crime rates. The death penalty does not cause the problem but it is merely a response to it. And
while the death penalty is usually implemented by autocracy or religious doctrine, it is almost never
used in response to actual modern societal values.

Therefore, the case against the death penalty is much stronger than the case for it. This would be the
same for anyone who believes that ethics are more important than any of the possible practical
benefits.