The Death penalty: A necessary evil?

Should we do to the criminal as they did to the victim? “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is one of the oldest and most famous sayings in the world. It comes from the Mosaic Law in the Bible and is a precept that has ruled millions for thousands of years. Capital punishment is the lawful perpetration of the death penalty in which the act of execution is carried out by the State.

In 16th Century England, the concept of death penalty was invoked to deal with crimes pertaining to treason, murder, larceny, burglary, rape, and arson. Five centuries later, we still use this ancient method of punishment to deal with those accused of “crimes against humanity and the State.” It is ironic how humanity is used as a reason of justification against the most inhumane act anyone could possible do; taking away another person’s life; But then again, the question arises as to whether one guilty of taking away someone’s life should be allowed to retain their own. The possibility of the accused being innocent always haunts the jury because death penalty, unlike imprisonment is irreversible once carried out. This puts innocent lives at risk of being killed for no reason whatsoever.

People feel strongly about the death penalty, but it is something they know very little about. Their attitudes are based on emotion rather than information or rational argument. People see the death penalty as something you are either for or against. It is only when you dig deeper into particular cases and scenarios that you realize there is no universal method or rule that can be put forth to validate the use of death penalty in that particular case. The people who favor the death penalty, favor it because they have a goal in mind, the reduction of crime. But does this actually work? Thomas Draper, author of ‘Capital Punishment’, states that “There are certain people who do not belong in our society. There are some who have committed such heinous crime that they don’t deserve to live.” H. Lee Sarokin, former US District Court and US Court of Appeals Judge, wrote in his article "Is It Time to Execute the Death Penalty?”, "In my view deterrence plays no part whatsoever. Persons contemplating murder do not sit around the kitchen table and say I won't commit this murder if I face the death penalty, but I will do it if the penalty is life without parole. I do not believe persons contemplating or committing murder plan to get caught or weigh the consequences. Statistics demonstrate that states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates than states with it, but frankly I think those statistics are immaterial and coincidental. Fear of the death penalty may cause a few to hesitate, but certainly not enough to keep it in force." Like these two well-informed men, innumerable other legal specialists and judges have put forth their opinion regarding the death sentence; both parties giving their own reasons to either retain capital punishment or repeal it entirely.

Some nations like the United States and China use lethal injection, hanging, firing squad, the electric chair and the gas chamber to carry out the execution. India predominantly uses hanging and firing squad to execute those sentenced to death. Out of the above stated methods, ‘lethal injection’ is said to be the most humane because the government claims that it is a pain-free process which renders the death-row inmate numb. So how does this so-called painless method work? The condemned inmate is strapped to a gurney and sedated with sodium thiopental, rendering the person unconscious. Then he/she is injected with a paralyzing agent, called pancuronium bromide, which stops the breathing muscles and finally a dose of potassium chloride which stops the heart. But here’s the issue with that, death penalty opponents argue that there is ample evidence that the current three-drug cocktail poses an unnecessary risk of pain and suffering. Anesthesiologists and end-of-life doctors contend in briefs filed with the court that if a person is not properly anesthetized, the paralyzing agent will prevent him from being able to indicate any distress, and that pancuronium bromide can make him feel as if he is suffocating. Medical experts say that if the person isn't properly anesthetized, then the third drug, which stops the heart, will be excruciatingly painful, making the prisoner feel as if his veins are on fire. Doesn’t seem so humane now, does it?

A person may argue that those guilty of violent crimes such as rape or murder need not be shown mercy to ensure their least painful execution. In my opinion, such an argument is shallow because encouraging violent and inhumane methods of execution defeats the whole purpose of executing the accused in the first place; that purpose being prevention of violent acts. If gore and inhumane acts are justified by executioners then there’s no reason as to why people should not take justice into their own hands, a friend or family member of a victim would be motivated to harm or kill the accused. This would lead society to descend down into a pathetic state of anarchy where murders can be justified by citing death penalty. Therefore, whether death penalty is repealed or retained, it is quintessential to ensure that such great power of delivering justice lies within not one person who is supreme, but a group of individuals dedicated to maintain liberty and justice, not under the influence of any organization, government or individual.

Society believes that punishment is a deterrent. Draper concludes in his book ‘Capital Punishment’, “If it can be said that any punishment at all is a deterrent, then it would seem to me that the most severe punishment would be the best deterrent.” This is what author Walter Berns had to say, “Take a moment to reflect on this hypothetical situation, if life imprisonment was the sentence for murders committed on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and death was the sentence for murders committed on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, we would quickly see the deterrent effect of the death penalty.” To look at the legal side of the debate, the law has two purposes: to forestall criminal behavior, and to punish it. All sentencing is based on the principal that punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime but what good is punishment if it does ratify the harm and injustice caused by crime?

Nobody knows how long the debate over capital punishment will continue. Even after a law is passed, either for or against the death penalty, the argument will still go on with different factions of people supporting their own ideologies and beliefs. At the end of the day, the policies decided by the government and law-makers shall prevail and the lives of death-row inmates will hang in the balance.