By: Anjo Chu
Introduction:
For as long as people can remember, capital punishment has long been considered one of human’s most controversial debates. Both surrounding the fact of ethics, and the
stigmatised profiling of victims that fall under the drought of capital punishment. Popular arguments for and against capital punishment fall distinctively under the three general senses of morality, utilitarianism, and the practicality of such acts. So why does the debate of the death penalty create such a dramatic politcal divide?
Morality:
Many of the supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit the most heinous acts of murder because they have taken another’s life, have now lost their right to life. Essentially reinforcing the idea of “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, which relates to the biblical and religious beliefs which back the argument of the death penalty for the supporter of capital punishment. They also believe that capital punishment is a form of consequence, believing that the reinforcement of the moral resentment of not only the victim’s family but as well as law-abiding civilians.
Argumentatively, the opposition of capital punishment believes that legitimizing the action of law that allows for repression and killing is more counterproductive. Even more, it is of the popular belief that when it is used as a common punishment of those that thought of as more ‘insignificant’ crimes - such as drug-related crimes, or any of those that do not result in the taking of another’s life, is to the core, fundamentally immoral and inhuman since it violates the person’s right to life.
Utilitarian: (the theory of morality that advocates actions that foster happiness or pleasure and oppose actions that cause unhappiness or harm)
Many of the advocates of the death penalty often claim that capital punishment has a special effect on many potentially violent individuals for whom the threat of imprisonment is not of sufficient restraint for them. People supporting the opposition directly object by pushing the statistics that research over the years has demonstrated that the death penalty is not a more effective punishment (referring to the reduction in criminal activity as effective) than the sentence of life imprisonment.
Practicality:
The debate of whether capital punishment can be administered in a way of justice is also a very commonly brought up debate within this topic. Those that support capital punishment believe that it is realistic to construct laws that can dutifully restrict the racial profiling that can happen during criminal capital punishment trials, and they believe that only wrongdoers should be worried about facing the consequences.
It is also notable that many of the opposition points, to the other factors that they contemplate, whether it is even possible to create laws that will - without a single valid argument, never wrongfully convict an individual of that offense. It proposes the argument that even in a completely well-run criminal justice system, the innocent will still be executed for the crimes that they did not commit. Many also argue that the poor, ethnic and religious minorities do not have access to good legal assistance, and suggesting that racial prejudice motivates the often predominately white juries in capital punishment trials that convict black or other non-white defendants in disproportionate numbers.
Abolishing the death penalty
Crediting the European Englightenment during the late 18th century, there was a wider spread of discussion surrounding the topic of the death penalty, along with many other dividing subjects. At the time, many crimes were punishable by death, even the more ‘insignificant’ cases (including petty theft).
Slowly, many states in the US (beginning with Pennsylvania and Michigan) started to abolish the death penalty, declaring it as inhumane and an inadequate punishment for crimes. Not only was the US progressing into illegalising the death penalty, so were many South American countries such as Venezuela, followed by many European countries like San Marino, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Italy (although the Italian legislation was soon overruled by the fascist undertaking of Benito Mussolini). Nearing the 1960s, over 25 countries have abolished the death penalty, although many countries still made exceptions like crimes against the state or military code. For instance, Britain abolished the death penalty for the act of murder (in all offences), but cases of treason, piracy and other military-related crimes remained legal.
Capital Punishment: Today
Despite the progression of movements towards the banning of the death penalty, many countries remain in support of capital punishment, and some countries have made it a higher priority to protect the law of legalisation for the act of capital punishment. More than 30 different countries have made the importation and possession for sale of drugs (different in each scenario) a capital offence, leading to consequences of capital punishment. For example, in Iran, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines, capital punishment for the distribution of illegal substances (drugs) is normative. Singapore has one of the highest rates of execution per capita of any country, about ¾ of individuals convicted of drug-related offences have been executed.
Alternatively, even though the majority of the US states have banned or put heavy restrictions on capital punishment (roughly 60%), ⅔ of all executions were coming from just 6 states (Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Virginia, Missouri, and Oklahoma).
Only in a few countries does the law allow for minors (any individual under the age of 18 when the crimes were committed) to be executed. Many people disagree with this law, protesting that the child cannot be to blame as they have not yet formed correct decisive natures for their actions. Therefore, conventions such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, have been important events of discussion in the United Nations, which has not yet concluded a blanket declaration for the execution of a minor.
In the late 90s, a series of cases in which an individual convicted of capital crimes and ones awaiting execution on death row were absolved based on the new DNA testing technology - many US states began to reconsider a temporary ban on the death penalty. In the early 2000s, Illinois Governor George Ryan ordered this particular ban (moratorium), explaining that the state had put to death around 12 people from 1977-2000 but that the death sentences of 13 other individuals had been quickly overturned in the same period. In 2003, Ryan completely removed all individuals awaiting execution. Following this controversial decision, a huge number of states consequently abolished capital punishment - New Jersey in 2007, Illinois in 2011, Connecticut in 2012, Washington in 2018, and Virginia just early on this year of 2021.
Amidst the rapid change in politics nowadays, it is uncertain whether the ban will stay the same. Many politicians have already made claims to reverse these laws and bring back capital punishment. Not so long ago, Donald Trump was one of the first presidents in the last decade to allow the execution of 13 inmates despite worrying efforts from the American populace. Although we can see the progression in politics regarding the decision of capital punishment, the future of these restrictive laws is still left uncertain.
Sources:
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Commentaires