Answer

Death Penalty

Laws are established for implementation and adherence, however, some the laws are not worth if they result in loss of lives. Death penalty remains an emotional topic. It refers to the sentence of execution for serious crimes such as rape or murder. Associated with death is life. Life is subsumed consecrated for every individual and in God’s eyes human beings are His masterpiece, therefore, human beings must take care of one another. Nonetheless, what is happening in the current world?  Warfare has overtaken the society, crime rates and violence have briskly increased, and therefore humanity is gently fading as people watch. To try and prevent or tame the aforementioned the states and governments have come up with an array of solutions or forms of punishments including Death Penalty. Inasmuch as death penalty plays a significant role in averting crime rates, it is not the proper way of punishing offenders. As such, this paper endeavors to oppose death penalty through providing various reasons in support of the opposition.

First, death penalty put innocent lives at risk. It is important to note the fact that the justice system is never and will never a hundred percent right (Bandes, 2018). The juries and judges rely on evidence, of which some may be incorrect, to prosecute. The juries and judges can convict an innocent person, for example, in the case of Marshall Donald who was jailed for many years for murder he never committed. The judges may sentence one to death yet the person may be innocent. Many of the crimes end up with accused serving jail terms and in many occasions individuals turn up innocent. Since they were only jailed, their sentences can be reversed. Because death penalty is irreversible it should be abolished because even the judge is as well a factor which determines the penalty. Absolute sentences may result in persons paying for crimes they never committed. For example, Cameron Todd Willingham, a Texas man was sentenced in 2004 for apparently setting fire leading to the death of his three children (Bandes, 2018). Following the sentence, further evidences disclosed that he never set the fire which resulted in the death of the daughters, but the evidence came very late.

Secondly, death penalty does not deter criminals (Bandes, 2018). Even with the many executions people still commit criminal offences. It is thus important for the juries and judges not to consider death penalties. There is no sound evidence that death penalties deter crimes more effectively in comparison to serving prison terms. Indeed evidence discloses the opposite as shown in Canada. Since the abolishment of death penalty in 1976, the country’s murder rates have progressively decreased with 2016 registering the lowest number of murder cases in the country.

Thirdly, death penalty ought to be abolished because there is no humane way of killing. The execution of Diaz Angel Nieves in 2006 by the alleged ‘humane’ lethal injection required two dozes and took over 30 minutes (Bandes, 2018). Medical professionals stated that it is likely Angel’s death was the most painful. The other mechanisms of execution including beheading, shooting, and hanging carry on perpetuating the violence cycle and might never alleviate the pain which the victims’ families had already suffered.

In conclusion, death penalty should be abolished because it leads to loss of innocent lives, it is inhumane, and does not deter criminal activities. The accused should serve jail terms if found guilty and should undergo rehabilitation.