The death penalty has been one of the most controversial forms of punishment in the world, making headlines repeatedly in countries like the US. For decades, the question at the forefront of people's minds has been whether or not New York's - and countless others' - decision to ban the death penalty has been a productive one. Looking deeper into the nature of the death penalty, it becomes abruptly clear that it is a violation of the ECHR under Article 1, as well as a risk far too dangerous to take. Shedding light upon the humane reasons as to why the death penalty should be abolished, as well as providing rebuttal to these claims, before concluding that the death penalty is in fact immoral and thus should be abolished in the prison system.
The death penalty violates fundamental human rights. Under the ECHR, its primary article is the right to life, forming the basis for all other fundamental rights. This right is absolute, meaning no human has the authority to take it away. Thus this is what makes murder wrong, logically speaking the death penalty goes against this.This is the reason the majority of European and Western countries have abolished it. If we start giving other people the right to end the lives of others, this creates a slippery slope. There is no way to quantify in which cases the death penalty could be used. It is also the case that in countries such as the USA, where it is legal in some states, the death penalty is given much more to members of the BAME community as opposed to others. Thus from this, we can see that the death penalty isn't given fairly, and thus how can we allow prejudice and bias to take part in our judicial system and further ethnic inequality? The irreversible nature of the death penalty makes wrongful convictions particularly grievous. The judicial system often makes mistakes, an example of this is the Central Park Five. How can we possibly justify that every single person we convict to a death sentence is 100% guilty? Surely, this risk by itself is enough to disincentive systems from using the death penalty and innocent people being executed. A more effective and humane solution for criminals is a life sentence with a rehabilitative purpose. Countries such as Norway have some of the lowest rates of re-offenders and yet have one of the most relaxed prison systems in the world. This thus furthers the notion that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent and does not work in lowering crime rates.
It is also important to mention just how expensive a state execution truly is. The average execution costs around a million USD, money that could have been used far more beneficially. Some argue that in the long term this money is well spent as it acts as a strong deterrent for comitting crime and thus decreases the crime rate. In actuality this proponent is completely false, the correlation between the death penalty and crime is low and inapplicable to a modern context.
However, for some victims and their families, the death penalty is one of the ways they seek justice. How can we justify a murderer not suffering the same consequence as its victim? Surely, as part of our judicial system, we need to take into consideration the position of families and their feelings. Moreover, the death penalty can help stop the problem of terrorists getting out on parole and reoffending, possibly inhibiting the idea of crime before it can even be done. Ultimately, the death penalty can be argued to be a preventative measure, one that aims to keep society safer. For some, crimes can be so abhorrent that the only fair retribution would be death. After all, the famous saying an ‘eye for an eye’ emphasises that crimes should be repaid with equal measure. Thus if an individual takes lives, his life should be taken too. It is simply a matter of fairness
After exploring the ethical and logistical factors of the death penalty, it becomes staggeringly clear that it should be abolished. After all, if as a society we do not uphold human dignity and justice, the basis for our social relations and prison system fails as a result. We cannot go against the ECHR to simply do what we feel is best, instead, we must respect the absolute right to life. A better punishment for grievous crimes could be life in prison without parole, in which both the well-being of the victim’s family and the rights of the convict of the family are respected.
Written by Aurore Lebrun
This is a brilliant piece
Fun fact, the death penalty is more expensive than sentencing someone to life in prison!
Amazing article
Very interesting !
Such an interesting but delicate subject; really like your points.