Death penalty: No human decision is ever perfect

Amnesty International, along with other human rights organisations and individuals, closely monitors the handling of the death penalty in the USA, which is soon to be livestreamed in one particular case. They argue that it violates the fundamental human right to life and degrades human dignity. Most countries worldwide have abolished capital punishment, replacing it with life imprisonment or releasing convicted murderers after a minimum sentence of fifteen, eighteen or twenty years. Arguments for and against the death penalty have been publicly debated for generations.

A society without rules and regulations written into law descends into chaos. Laws without consequences need not be agreed upon, as they would be mere empty promises of orderly behaviour meant to benefit citizens. Unlike manslaughter, murder is an intentional act of severe violence against a person. Certain defined characteristics must be met before the killing of a person can be judged as murder. No human is forced to kill another human. Citizens are expected to be law‑abiding; otherwise, law enforcement becomes useless and chaos determines the fate of society. Murderers know the rules of the country they live in. They are aware that other countries have different laws for murder cases, with no death penalty imposed on offenders. They are free to move to such countries and do what they cannot stop doing. The moment they take innocent lives, they are fully aware of the death penalty in their country if caught, yet they still go ahead and murder another person. Their act is a testimony that they do not respect life and degrade their victims as bodies to be destroyed, with life taken away by their will and action.

Human rights organisations and critics do not run campaigns asking citizens not to murder others, but rather to find peaceful ways to resolve personal conflicts (e.g., school shootings, killings of family members) or organised conflicts (e.g., drug‑related or gang‑related killings). They offer practical avenues through which conflicts can be reduced or, ideally, stopped at an immediate personal level.

Pros and cons form part of a heated debate. Critics argue that if an innocent person were executed, the state would face a serious moral crisis. In many other justice cases, innocent people sit behind bars and are released much later, with financial compensation paid by the state. This suggests that the justice system should be fixed to prevent innocent people from paying a higher price than the death penalty itself. Circumstantial‑evidence‑based murder trials always leave open the possibility that years after judgment, new evidence may prove a convict’s innocence. Other cases are crystal clear with undeniable evidence. Some mass murderers have even asked for execution instead of waiting for years on death row or spending the rest of their lives behind bars.

Capital punishment stands as a demonstration that society expects citizens not to kill another human being and to obey the law, fully aware of the consequences.

   Comments0