Capital Punishment Cons: Perspective Law and Human Rights

Using the death penalty over the years becomes rarer and is applied only after murders with aggravating circumstances. Having studied the historical background, it can be argued that the more conscious society becomes, the more followers of its abolition become. In the last century, there was a much stricter society that adhered to the moral standards of that time. Now the democratic way of life prevails, which is expressed in a fairer system of rewards and punishments. It can be noticed that punitive measures are applied depending on the location, the severity of the crime, and the time. The death penalty is the capital punishment most often used for the most severe crimes, such as willful homicide. However, many people may consider it an unnecessary social safety precaution because it violates human rights, causes political controversy, and does not restrict people from committing crimes.

The main issue when considering the need to apply the death penalty is the immorality of this act. Everyone has rights and freedoms that are contravened when the death penalty is used. According to Toth (2020), “it is inhumane because it violates human dignity by not only restricting but also rendering impossible the exercise and enjoyment of these permanently and irrevocably” (p. 13). It is rational to assume that punishment should deprive of rights and freedoms, but not in perpetuity. In other words, the person deserves restraint or arrest when wrongdoing for realizing and correcting. For example, life imprisonment is possible for the most severe crimes. This path may be even more painful and unattractive for criminals. In addition, a person can change their minds and radically adjust their behavior and positioning. For example, an arrested person understands a deed he has committed and is tormented by conscience and guilt. As a result, many will not want to feel it again and may transform comportment. The moral issue of the death penalty is fundamental since it affects the rights and will of a person.

The freedom and restrictions on the individuals’ behavior are spelled out in legislation; that is why it covers the political aspects. The death penalty is still an administratively controversial legitimate state interest in civil protection. Social laws and morality are constantly changing, and it is challenging to meet the needs of society. Politicians have to take leadership positions and use powerful arguments to rationalize the motivation for repealing or maintaining laws (Barry, 2017). Democratization causes the necessity to think not only about legislative but also about moral rights. For example, oppositionists do not agree with life imprisonment for serious crimes and do not want to pay taxes on keeping these people in prisons. Additionally, the relatives of the perished want the criminal to die like their loved ones. These people do not think about general moral principles; they only care about personal well-being. However, for common justice and flourishing high moral principles, politicians try to compromise and help the opposition understand that a person can improve and benefit society. Legislation is closely linked to moral standards since it helps to ensure a morally healthy and satisfied society.

The death penalty does not restrict people’s desire to commit a serious crime because many think they will not be affected. More often, criminals believe they will not get caught and will avoid punishment. An alternative mental sequence is a complete apathy and lack of life value. In other words, people who have nothing to lose do not realize the difference between prison and the death penalty. Some even consider mortification to be a more desirable punishment. Such persons are most frequently mentally ill, and they have no place in society. Sick humans should be arranged in special clinics, where they can be helped or limited from harm to society. Individuals with a healthy brain even can enjoy the form of the death penalty. For example, in the last century, pickpockets were not afraid of hanging their colleagues; they came and watched the execution with pleasure (Alamsyah, 2018). To conclude, this type of punishment does not frighten people, but on the contrary, brings satisfaction.

Using the death penalty is a relic of the past and does not correspond to the norms and standards of modern society. Moral paradigms are the major limitation in this matter since punishment takes away human rights and freedoms forever. The problem causes political controversy and discontent among the people because of the established democratic order. Authorities have to rationalize their behavior, prohibit and approve laws to ensure social satisfaction, and raise moral standards. The possibility of the death penalty does not restrict people’s intentions to commit serious crimes. Most often, they experience positive emotions when killing other people or think that they will not be caught. The death penalty is legal these days, but over time it is carried out less and less. It is a step in the right direction because ending severe violence like this will help society and the world become a better place.

References

Alamsyah, N. (2018). Death sentencing on perspective law and human rights. International Conference of ASEAN Perspective and Policy (ICAP), 1(1), 31-35. Web.

Barry, K. M. (2017). The law of abolition. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 107(4), 520–560. Web.

Toth, Z. J. (2020). Changing attitudes towards the death penalty. Palgrave Macmillan. Web.