One of the inumerable articles crimilising the death penalty. However, should the death penalty really be abolished and why?
Assuming capital punishment has handed out only in the most severe of cases, why should it not be accepted? All the human rights agencies etc talk about humane treatment etc but what of the victims? The economist does have an interesting point:
Some crimes are so heinous that a societal cost-benefit analysis hardly appears relevant. Death alone seems sufficient. And yet, as many relatives of murder victims have discovered, real retribution can never be achieved. For example, the only way to repay fully those who have committed multiple murder, or killed in a ghastly way, would be to torture them physically in turn, or to strive to make them endure repeatedly the torments of death. Modern societies have rightly turned away from such practices as barbaric, tempering their demands for retribution in recognition that tit-for-tat vengeance is beyond the reach of human justice.
I agree that having a tit-fot-tat is not the way to go. But neither is letting the criminal lanquish in jail, happily fed by taxpayer’s money. Does he truely deserve that? Wouldn’t that money be better spent in helping the victim’s family in somway? I do not know the exact data for repeat criminals but I do know it to be very high indeed.
I agree with the economist though, it is a dangerous power to give any government and proper checks and procedures need to be in place to prevent abuse. However, I disgree with the below:
Despite voluminous academic studies of American executions and crime rates, there is no solid evidence that the death penalty is any more effective at deterring murder than long terms of imprisonment.
That is America, what studies have been conducted in the rest of the world? And can we really abolish the dead penalty based on studies conducted in one country?