Reasons to Give Up the Death Penalty

According to Amnesty International, seventy-six countries have eradicated the death penalty completely, and many countries that retain the death penalty have not utilized it for years. Capital punishment should be abolished because of the following: it is not an effective crime deterrent, it may result in the loss of innocent lives, it is morally wrong, and there are other, more humane, alternatives.

The death penalty does not contribute to the deterrence of crime. In fact, the death penalty may actually raise crime rates. Jack Callahan in his “Stop Killing People'  concludes that capital punishment is no more effective than life imprisonment in deterring murder.

Capital punishment is not a viable solution for offenders with mental problems because they are incapable of normal thought processes and many cannot even grasp the concept of death.

The death penalty puts innocent lives at stake. It is widely recognized that justice system is not perfect. There are times when people are wrongly accused of crimes or they are not granted fair trials. There is still corruption in our justice system, and bias and discrimination occur. In the same article Jack Callahan claims that since 1970, 76 people have been released from death row because of clear evidence of their innocence.

The government has no right to put conditions on human life. Helen Prejean, author of "Executions are too costly--Morally," encapsulates this idea in her essay when she says "Allowing our government to kill citizens compromises the deepest moral values upon which this country was conceived: the inviolable dignity of human persons".When the government or individuals make the decision to take another human life and act upon it, they commit murder. Moreover, it contradicts with morality and consistent ethic of life. Thus, James Megivern is his book ‘The Death Penalty’ says: ‘Punishment, Yes, Death, No…Every person has universal, inviolable, inalienable rights. Basic to all is the Right to Life.”

The death penalty sends a confusing and contradictory message "Don't kill or we will kill you."  Punishing an action with the same action is incongruous and inconsistent. It only serves to confuse and reinforce the behavior rather than correct it.

Capital punishment is not necessary because there are other alternatives. First of all, tougher sentencing would help deter offenders from committing crimes. Longer jail time for felons and first-time offenders would keep them from entering society until they were able to rehabilitate. In addition, life sentences would prevent violent offenders from reoffending. Also, keeping convicts in prison is cheaper than executing them, so it is a better alternative. Requiring inmates to pay for their time in prison would further reduce the cost to taxpayers. Allocating a portion of a prisoner's earnings toward facility expenses and programs would force them to literally "pay" for their crimes. Although money can never replace a loved one or completely heal the damage, it could help families reconstruct their lives. There are more constructive alternatives to the death penalty.

Human life is precious, yet society does not hesitate to cast it aside into a system that is mediocre at best, without remorse. Capital punishment does not deter crime, cannot ensure the safety of the innocent, and is morally deficient. There are other alternatives. Murderers and violent offenders deserve to be punished for their crimes, and victims and their families deserve justice. However, the death penalty is not the answer.

Many other countries have eradicated the death penalty for this reason. The countries that have abolished capital punishment have substantially lower crime rates.