Capital Punishment is now prohibited in many countries and I agree with many reasons given to ban in outright. We will talk about all those reasons but let me clear my stance on Capital Punishment, I agree with Capital Punishment in case of thought out intended cold blooded murder, not a killing that happens in self defense or a man slaughter or any other peculiar circumstances. Next, the justice system in most countries is flawed, i.e., when Fredrick kills John, government in most countries think that it is not a crime against John or John’s family, but against her, ie the State. This is the most ridiculous part of justice system, the State failed to protect a citizen and instead of being rebuked and disciplined for its clumsy job, it suddenly becomes the plaintiff. Wrong.
I think John and John’s family should be the plaintiffs. They are the one’s who are going to suffer. And the judge has to decide only that if the person is guilty of murdering someone in cold blood. Whether he is given Capital Punishment or not should depend on those who are the victims of the crime, John’s mother – one who gave birth to John in pain, then cared for him for several years, John was the apple of her eyes, she had so many hopes and expectations from John and someone killed John. What happens to her? Is she just supposed to suck it up? The same argument can be made about John’s father, who provided for him when he was young, who worked additional shifts to provide for him better education or opportunities, one who advised him for his life and had hopes and expectations from him. What about John’s widow? Her life has come to an abrupt halt, her partner is dead, who loved her, comforted her in distress, promised to age with her, she had promised her life with him, how does she live this life without the pillar that she used to lean on. What about John’s children? They are orphans now, they have been deprived on fatherly love, fatherly advice, a role model and financial security. The same case can be made for brothers and sisters of John and wider family and friends who shared their life with John. These should be plaintiffs, not government.
Government had only transactional relationship with John, if John dies, the transactional relationship dies, Government is not going to cry over the dead body of John, neither does her future depends on John, like John’s family, hence having government as plaintiff is a serious error of justice. The Mother and rest of family should not be just plaintiff, these are the people who should decide if the execution is to carried or if they are ready to forgive. Obviously I prefer forgiveness over punishment, but it is not my call, it is call of John’s family. They alone should have the right to let Fredrick live or die.
Let us now discuss the arguments that are made against Capital Punishment.
Right to Life
Although I agree with the Right of Life of everyone, one who intends, then plans and then kills someone has proven that he does not care about Right to Life, hence it is his disbelief in Right of Life that this Right must not be given to him.
Execution of Innocents
This is a serious argument and it happens a lot of times that people do get wrongly convicted. And I don’t have much defense on this except that the guilty can still appeal to John’s family and beseech them of his innocence and convince them of their mercy. A terrible situation to be in, but this happens in all the time and in all sorts of crimes, that does not mean that we should stop punishments for crimes.
Retribution/Vengeance is Wrong
I principally disagree with the premise. All sort of justice is arguably some sort of retribution or vengeance. Let alone crimes of criminal nature but even civil crimes are a sort of retribution, Google was fined over £5 billion by EU, is that not a kind of retribution for breaking EU laws? When EU leaders and justices say that Google broke the law and must be fined for it, is this not retribution for breaking the law.
Failure to deter
I agree Capital Punishment or any other punishment do not deter people from becoming criminals. But I do not believe deterrence as one of the reasons for Capital Punishment. My argument is justice for family of John.
This argument is based on a flawed premise, that introducing Capital Punishment will burtalise society. This is wrong because when you have Fredrick Murdering John in cold blood, you already are a brutal society. When judge announces guilty for Fredrick for killing John, it is should be left with John’s family to decide what do they want to do with Fredrick. If they think forgiving him is better for the society let them forgive him, but it is a decision for John’s family, not someone who is not related to John, never met John, never loved him, never cared for him, had no emotional attachment to John, etc. These people whose life is not effected by John’s brutal death should have no say in whether Fredrick deserves the same brutality in his death.
Some people bring this ridiculous argument of costs, and they include all costs of the case. All the costs they list will be incurred even if there was no death penalty, so I do not see this as a viable argument.
Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading
This has the same answer as The Right to Life, when Fredrick murdered John, he was being cruel, inhumane and degrading. Fredrick is only reaping what he has sown.
I am not sure if I have left anything out, but if there is another argument, please leave it in the comment box. The above does not mean that I support death penalty, but I understand the context where it must be applied and most importantly by Whom.