This paper will discuss more capital punishment in detail, which has been debated hotly world widely, its advantages and disadvantages. It will also discuss more the approaches of the Human Rights and Commission and law towards capital punishment, the arguments about capital punishment, and moral issues of capital punishment.
Capital punishment is, also known as the death penalty, is whereby one is punished by death for a crime committed as a requirement by law (Bohm & Bohm, 2019). In most cases, people have jailed a death sentence when they commit murder, treason, genocide, etc. some countries use capital punishment. In contrast, other countries see it as an outdated fashion of punishment. For the countries where capital punishment is practiced, there are different ways to approach it. For instance, capital punishment was traditionally brutal and painful because it is done through a hanging, stoning, shooting, beheading, electrocution, and tranquilization. Currently, criminals are undergoing probation, jailed for not less than five years accompanied by a heavy fine.
Capital punishment helps in countries’ peace through adhering to the laws and regulations of the country. The death penalty allows prisons from being over-populated because many people are in jail awaiting trial. Capital punishment offers zero chances of escape from the sentence. The murderers are executed to deter others from committing such crimes. According to the data collected to study about capital punishment, the legal system does not prevent crime as it should do to ensure these crimes are not repeated. Capital punishment does not provide any form of justice to the culprit’s family. The family is emotionally and psychologically when the victim is sentenced to life rather than death penalty. Capital punishment does not communicate the issue of crime in society because some people commit it for pleasure (Kurniawan, 2020).
The Human Rights Commission is against capital punishment because it violates the rights of human beings even though it’s a wake-up call for those who are thinking about committing the offense. Having jailed these criminals, they cannot harm the innocent again. In respect of human nature, eliminating crime cases in society is not possible; they are only reduced. For that reason, the Human Rights Commission argues the law and the society to correct them in the proper manner and law to be applied only when required (Widerberg, 2018). The law should follow a fair, reasonable, and just method when dealing with criminals. The Human Rights Commission is at the forefront to fight for human beings’ rights from being degraded by the law. As much as it fights for these rights, some crime cases such as murder are exceptional, meaning the death penalty has to be applied.
The law denies criminals a second chance to change their behavior, arguing that “once a criminal forever a criminal” is because the options of one changing are next to zero. There is no solid proof that if one is executed, the fear is induced in others, and crimes are reduced. The law is there to protect its people from any harm or danger. The law believes in the “lex talionis” principle or the saying “eye- for- an- eye” and “tooth- for a -a tooth” to mean one deserves a better punishment for the crime done (Mostyn, 2021).
People argue in a Christian manner that no one has the authority to take life apart from God because He is the giver. We cannot allow criminals to harass the people in the society without punishing them in the name of human rights, which they have failed to adhere to. Even though we shouldn’t advocate for the death sentence to a thief of goat, bread, etc., with minor cases, one can just be imprisoned for some years to learn the mistakes. It is also argued that a life sentence is more painful and expensive than death.
Supporters of the death penalty fully justify it by believing if one causes murder intentionally, then the death penalty is morally justified. One is given what one deserves. There is still opposer who think “eye-for-eye “is being immoral. They argue that murder is an unjustified and intentional taking of one’s life. Therefore, if the government does not protect its people from such uncouth behavior, it’s encouraging immorality.
In conclusion, I can say that the death penalty is against human rights and God’s will, He is the giver, and He should be the one to take away a life. Capital punishment should be declared unconstitutional because it’s against humanity. The legal system should avoid capital punishment and implement a better way to punish criminals because they experience physical and mental torture. The death penalty should be wholly terminated in all countries.
References
Bohm, R., & Bohm, R. M. (2019). Deathquest: An introduction to the theory and practice of capital punishment in the United States. Routledge.
Kurniawan, S. D. (2020). The Capital Punishment for Narcotic Crime: Pros and Cons in Indonesian Legal System. The Indonesian Journal of International Clinical Legal Education, 2(4), 393-406.
Mostyn, B. (2021). Deadly serious: The United Nations, drugs, and capital punishment in the 1980s. International Journal of Drug Policy, 92, 103167.
Widerberg Serak, M. (2018). Putting capital punishment to rest: A qualitative study of capital punishment and human rights in China and the Philippines.
write