西雅圖求學記

The death penalty is a controversial issue. In some countries, many people think that a murderer have to pay a corresponding price.  The death penalty can bring justice and make the families of the victims feel better.  On the other hand, many countries think the death penalty is not the only way to isolate the criminal, life imprisonment is a better punishment to use instead of the death penalty. 

Criminals are typically executed via the electric chair, gas chamber, firing squad, lethal injection etc.  All the above methods are inhumane.  There is no evidence to point out that execute the death penalty can stop crime.  It is also difficult to judge the death penalty as a deterrent to crime.  In other words, the death penalty can't solve the problem of crime.

The death penalty is not the only way to isolate a criminal.  Life imprisonment can also isolate a criminal.  Although some people think that the death penalty can soothe the feelings of victims’ families, the death penalty cannot bring justice.  Therefore, why do people support the death penalty?  Protecting human rights, following the international trend, offering an opportunity to correct mistakes, and reducing the spending of the government are all important reasons that the death penalty should be abolished.

The first reason that the death penalty should be abolished is the protection of human rights.  Every country around the world has discussed the human rights implications of the death penalty.  People have the basic right to life.  A government should protect its civilians from injury.  However, the death penalty violates the basic human rights in life.  A government should not have the right to decide a person's life.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which is an organization of international human rights law, also mentioned human rights should be brought into international law.  Every life has its value, and the protection of the right to life is an existing fundamental principle around the world.  Everyone, including a government, should respect an individual's life.  If a murderer infringes on another’s right to life, should a government do the same thing to the murderer?  If the death penalty is reasonable and proper behavior, they do more and more people advocate the abolition of the death penalty?

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in its Article 6 mentioned “Every human being has the inherent right to life.  This right shall be protected by law.  No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life” (1966).  A criminal on death row should also have the right to life.  A death row has psychological pressure and powerful mental torture faced with unpredictable time of execution.  This is not humane and violates human rights.  Therefore, to protect a death row's human rights, life should not be decided by law.

Life is a process, which will eventually end one day.  It doesn't mean anyone has the right to end it.  The death penalty should not be a tool to control a person's life.  Every life is worthy of respect, even if a murderer.  Ingrid Nicolau explains that “the progress of death penalty abolition, linked to progress of human rights, is part of the evolution outside Europe too, in international conventions” (2013, p. 281).  When Europe devoted itself to promoting abolition, it also pressured other countries which used the death penalty.  After their efforts countries that have abolished the death penalty outnumber those that continue i.e.

The question of death penalty abolition has existed for a long period of time.  The international trend is tending to abolish the death penalty even the International Convention on Human Rights supports the abolition of the death penalty.  In addition, many international organizations are also devoted to promote the abolition of death penalty to the countries which still have the death penalty.  Richard C. Dieter illustrates that Venezuela was the first official country to abolish the death penalty in 1867.  The Netherlands was the second country to abolish the death penalty in 1870 (2002).  Even though abolition of the death penalty will require a long path, it is a bound to happen.

In European every country except Belarus has abolished the death penalty.  Any country which wants to become a member of European Union (EU) has to abolish the death penalty.  According to Emma Bonino, there were only 16 countries before the world that had abolished the death penalty in 1970s.  Nowadays, there are 150 countries of the member of the United Nations which abolished the death penalty, which means more than two-thirds countries agree with abolition (2014).  Furthermore, according to the latest data from Amnesty International, 101 countries have abolished the death penalty for all offenses as of July 2015.  Those data demonstrate how the countries around the world are tending toward abolishing the death penalty.  No doubt, there will be more and more countries support the abolition of death penalty.

Most of the American states have abolished the death penalty.   In the United States, there are 19 states that have abolished the death penalty.  Michigan was the first states to abolish the death penalty for all crimes except treason in 1846.  Recently, Nebraska has abolished the death penalty in May 2015 via vote.  According to Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) in 2015, the quantity of death sentences has been lower than any moment since the death penalty was restored.  Since 1976 record, there were 35 death row was executed, which was the lowest number.

A Gallup poll showed that 61 percent people favor the death penalty of a murderer in 2015, it declines 2 percent over last year.  37 percent people support abolition the death penalty. This is the second new high since 1972.  Polls show that more and more American support abolishing the death penalty.  Accordingly, we know that the death penalty is antiquated and does not meet the trend.

The death penalty should not only deal from a legal point of view, but also should consider the view of human nature and rationality.  Sirohi Sanjeev (2014) is considered a criminal who perpetrated monstrous may have committed.  But the law should give criminal a chance to returning to the society.  Not all of the criminals are devoid of humanity.  Some of them hope can rectify their mistakes.  Abolishing the death penalty can offer an opportunity for them to correct their mistakes.  It also provides an opportunity for criminals to families of the victims to seek forgiveness.

Some people will say that death row is sentenced to death because commit major criminal cases.  It doesn't mean death row inmates don't want repentance that is because they don't have the opportunity to modify their offense.  According to Sirohi, cited that Oscar Wilde had said “the only difference between a saint and a sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future” (2014, p. 63).  A criminal need a future to repent if the death penalty was abolished.  A government can influence a criminal though education.  A government should also give them a chance giving them the opportunity to repent and turn.

The death penalty is not a good policy.  A criminal should also be looking forward to repent and be forgiven, no one deserve dead.  Forgiveness is more positive than revenge.  The death penalty cannot eliminate the families of the victims of resentment.  There will have other way can compensate victims' families.  Giving death row inmates an opportunity to compensate returning their mistakes can display more magnanimous.

Reducing the spending of the government is every country's goal.  However, sentencing the death penalty cases is very expensive in the United States.  In the United States, the judicial procedure for the death penalty cases is complex.  This causes high cost of the death penalty.  Prosecutors have to collect evidence, questioning witnesses and trying to find some documents.  Sentenced to death needs defense lawyers, but hiring the defense lawyers have to pay a lot of money in the United States.  The government also has to pay fees for prosecutors.  It means that each implementation of the death sentence will increase financial costs of the government.  In addition, if a new piece of evidence has been found, the case would be faced the second trial or a criminal appeals to trial which means spending more money.

Financial costs of the death penalty are higher than keeping criminals in prison for life.  The Marshall Project mentioned a study of Kansas reported that “a death row prisoner costs $49,380 to house per year, whereas a general population prison costs $24,690” (2014).  This report shows that spending of a death row are 2 times than a general prison.  A death row need to be guarded strictly, so the cost is higher for sure.

Judge Arthur L. Alarcón Paula M. & Mitchell pointed out that since death penalty was restored in 1978, California has been spent more than four billion.  Executing 13 death rows spent about 308 million (2012).  The number shows that California should not restore the death penalty.  Abolition of the death penalty is in favor of saving the finances.  They made a wrong decision.  The spending death penalty is more than three times as Life imprisonment (Judge Arthur L. & Paula M., 2012).  It is incredibly expensive, so the death penalty cost taxpayers so much money.

The prison for the death penalty is different from life imprisonment.  It needs more security people to monitor and higher safety facility to prevent death row escape.  Jennifer Sullivan introduced a research of Seattle University in The Seattle Times, in Washington State; the cost of each death penalty is more than one million so that prosecutors don't want the judge to sentence the death penalty (2015).  People have different values for abolition of the death penalty.  Whether people who are the death penalty supporter or advocate of abolishing the death penalty, they all have their argument.  For the voices of the international community, abolition of the death penalty should be a rational view.

From the angle of human rights, death row inmates also have right to life.  From the angle of the international trend, all world countries are moving toward the abolition of the death penalty.  From the human point of view, forgiveness is great to offer an opportunity for a criminal put right its mistakes.  From the point of view, we can save lives.  In addition, evidence shows that abolishing the death penalty saves financial costs.

The death penalty is inhumane and cruel.  Killing a criminal does not solve social problems, and it may even result in a miscarriage of justice.  The law is not a tool of revenge. Punishment is necessary, but not necessarily so a death sentence.  There are some countries that still implement the death penalty.  However, they will eventually abolish it. Though abolition of the death penalty is long and difficult, it must push forward.