The death penalty has been a debatable concept throughout human history. This essay argues that the enforcement of such punishment may have some advantages, however considering it as the extreme and objectionable decision.
Undeniably, capital punishment deters the re-offending since most of the law-breakers turn to crime once again after release. In other words, the inborn tendency to cruelty cannot be eliminated or suppressed and the training and time for rehabilitation cannot change the wicked minds of some criminals. Moreover, taxpayers foot the bill for long-term accommodation in jail, which contradicts the main purpose of punishment. To illustrate that, there are some examples of people committing crime not to abuse the law but to get incarcerated: in European countries the living conditions in prisons are sometimes better than the shelter that one can provide themselves with. Consequently, it creates an illusion that there is nothing terrifying in abusing the law.
However, nothing is more valuable than the life of a human. In the current condition of the law system, it is impossible to avoid cases of faulty convictions. Hence, by implementing the death penalty the government will doom hundreds of innocent people for execution. Besides, capital punishment does not actually reduce the crime rate effectively. For further understanding, consider the average fraudster: most people commit crime while being affected by poverty, unemployment, mental health, different sorts of abuse, etc. – fear is not a deterrent for such cases. That said, the awareness about imminent death won’t satisfy hunger or pay the debts, therefore not excluding the trigger for an unpremeditated crime.
In conclusion, capital punishment can be a treatment for symptoms but not for the origins of crime. The unwillingness to fight with crime ex-ante could never prove the possibility of mistakenly executing a guiltless person .