The death penalty is not an effective law enforcement tool

I. IntroductionCapital punishment, in law, is the imposition of the death penalty for the commission of a crime.

In countries that permit capital punishment, murder and treason are usually considered capital crimes (crimes for which the death sentence can be imposed). Other been specified in modern times include kidnapping, rape, air piracy, and espionage. Capital punishment for an offense may be either mandatory (required by the law to be applied upon conviction) or discretionary (left to the jury or the court to decide in passing sentence in individual cases). Among the methods used to carry out the death sentence are electrocutions, asphyxiation with gas, injection of lethal drugs, hanging, beheading, and shooting (Hurwitt, 2003).

Capital punishment has been a controversial issue since the 18th century. Opponents of the death penalty have argued that it is a throwback to the barbarism of the past and also that it has no effect on reducing violent crime. They have called for its abolition. Supporters of capital punishment have held that it serves as a deterrent to serious criminality and that it is essential to public safety.

Since ancient times, capital punishment has been a part of criminal justice systems. The earliest known written provision was in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, dated about 1750 B.C. Twenty-five crimes punishable by death were specified.The purpose of this study is to know the pros and cons of capital punishment and understand some grounds why capital punishment needs   to be abolished.II.

DiscussionA. The Pros and Cons of Capital PunishmentDoes the State have the right and, therefore, the authority to impose capital punishment, that is, to put to death a criminal? Advocates of human rights oppose, including myself, capital punishment as cruel, inhuman, uncivilized, and inconsistent with reason. Our Constitution may abolish capital punishment, but does not prohibit Congress to impose death penalty for “heinous crimes.” Today, our legislators have yet to define and rule on what constitutes a heinous crime (Meltzer, 1999).

The Pros of Capital Punishment. Just as an individual may invoke self-defense, the State, charged with the care of society, has the right and the power to defend the citizens from criminals. When imprisonment or isolation is not commensurate to the crime, or to the notoriety of the criminal, capital punishment may be imposed as a choice of lesser evil.God has given to the State the right over life and death, as He has given to every man the right of self-defense against unjust aggression.

This moral power of the State has been universally acknowledged in Christian tradition. It is explicitly declared in Scripture to have existed in the Jewish State (Exodus 22, 18); it was recognized in the Roman polity by St. Paul (Roman 13, 4): “For he (the Prince) is God’s minister to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain.

”This would only imply that every person has the right to live without “unjust molestation” from others. Capital punishment is therefore necessary for peace and security of life and property. Capital punishment is a deterrent so that citizens may live and go about their activities without molestation. Nonetheless, there must be conditions on when capital punishment should be applied:1. The criminal is given “due process” in court;2. The crime imputed to him must be deserving of the highest possible punishment;3.

The guilt of the criminal is sufficiently proved beyond any doubt.The Cons of Capital Punishment. While there are indeed numerous texts from the Scripture supportive of capital punishment, such are not acceptable since “they were written at a time when bloody vengeance was exacted for murder and it was believed that the blood of the victim cried out from the earth until it had been avenged by the blood of the murderer.” “Precisely” Jesus repudiated the law of talion, which demanded an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Instead, Jesus taught us to love our enemies and do good to those who harm us.

Although this does not mean that we should not punish at all, for we have seen that punishment can be good and just, it is claim on us to temper the severity of punishment with a mercy which is born of love.”Another argument advanced is that capital punishment is not the only alternative open for punishing criminals. The alternative is modern societies is imprisonment for life. This imprisonment is a serious deprivation which expresses sufficiently society’s condemnation of willful murder.Capital punishment is a destructive action which needs a special justification, a special pleading. Capital punishment should never be compared with surgery where the intention is the preservation of life and not the extinction of life.

Directly harmful actions which do not bring benefit to one who suffers them are hard to justify. Such is capital punishment for its directly destroys the life of a person, preventing him to make amends and to change his life. Indeed, it is the presumed that the Senate has the duty to rehabilitate criminals.In addition, it may seem strange that it cannot be proved that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, but there are a number of reasons why it may not be. For the death penalty to deter a number of conditions would have to be satisfied.

The criminal would have to consider the possible outcome of his crime before committing it. But many murders are crimes of passion, committed when feelings are running high. Often the murderer does not intend that his criminal activities will end up with a murder. Sometimes at the time of the crime his state of mind is such that he does not care what becomes of him: nothing seems so important as attacking his victim (Laqueur, 2001).Admitting that there are indeed cases where murderers who have killed again after their release from prison. I do believe that even in these cases the solution is not putting these criminals to death but by intensifying security in prisons.

I believe that crimes are the result of socio-environmental conditions.  He declares as his personal conviction “that the State has no right to uphold the death penalty unless it has done all in its power to give better education and to care for a more just and humane environment.”A supreme court that practically forces parents to send their children into an educational system where the teaching of religion and an ethics based on faith is forbidden should not be entitled to endorse the death penalty, for many crimes flow from that very system of education.III. ConclusionIn conclusion, there are two probable opinions within Christianity and within the Catholic Church regarding the death penalty.

We should always remember that every action we do have a consequence, whether it is good or bad. As I study this issue, I learned that I should not be one sided but be opened for any different views regarding death penalty issue. My views were widened that both pro and anti are having valid reasons why they fight and stand out for their beliefs and principles. But, I have noticed that the more death penalty is practiced, the crime rates increase instead of decreasing.

So, as my conclusion, it is better to stop death penalty not because I am totally against on it but because the crime rates did not lessen as what others think of.Moreover, if in case death penalty will not be abolished, I would suggest that the judge must be careful in giving such punishment. They must review the death sentence they have given to the accused to avoid mistakes and spare the lives of the innocence. And for the legislators, they should think-through the laws they make. They should not make laws which are always in favor in their race or color.