Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and life for life, this specific common understanding about acts and responses specifically define the core source of human rule which permeated the development of society even among the ancient groups of human generations in history. Relatively, the idea is simple, what one takes, he should be able to repay it with the same value. Nevertheless, as years pass, the development of human law and legal sanctions developed hence introducing the emergence of human rights (Dellapiana, 2007). The clauses of human rights specifically respect the different natural rights of human individuals including the right to life and the right to fair trial.
The argument on whether or not death penalty should be accepted as something that is humane has been a reason for debate for many years (Zivot, 2012). Several researches on what is humane and what is not has already been given attention to. In the discussion that follows, several indications on what makes death penalty specifically needed in this current system of matters shall be given particular attention to hence making an indication on its necessity in keeping peace and security in the society at present.
The argument over the ideal aspect of considering what is a humane act specifically starts at the occurrence of a crime in the hands of the criminal. Relatively, a person who does not respect the rights of his fellowmen should be accounted for his acts, thus imposing on the right to be punished. This specifically anticipates the condition by which the right for protection on the part of the victims is recognized accordingly. In a way, the principle of eye for an eye still remains intact especially when it comes to paying up for the value that was lost. For instance, in cases of murder, it is just right to instantiate that the response to such crime would be an equal value to the life that was taken. In a way, the application of the olden-time principle on the rule for equal value still applies. However, there are certain considerations to take note of.
First is the accuracy of conviction on the process of criminal trials. Because of the instance of human error, there are several points when the court releases wrong convictions to the wrong persons. As a result, at least 23% of those who are convicted for death penalty are still pleading to be guilty (SCD, 2004). This is the reason why there are those who claim that such option of punishment is specifically inhumane in nature, especially if the ones who are in the death line are actually guilty thus would be paying their lives for something that they have never committed.
Second consideration is the gravity of the crime that is being attested to be punished through death penalty. There is an argument over the relative gravity of the act that has been accomplished by the supposed criminal and how should it be paid for. Cases such as genocide, mass murder, terrorism and [individual] murder are all situations that impose on an offense against humanity. Such a distinctive disrespect on the rights of humans defines the direct defilement of the idea of being human. Such condition of defilement then calls for a specific manner of responding to the crime.
Third consideration is the indication of value. What makes a crime a relative value for it to be worth the life of another man? This question has specifically been related to the cause for forgiveness. What is more humane; to punish or to give relative forgiveness, to accept reality or to insist for revenge? The contradicting ideals on how to value matters as they are presented in line with the value for those who were victimized against the values that are considered essential for the criminal himself continues to remain at a distinctive condition by which debaters try to seek a more relative course of measurement on which specific side to take.
These considerations on the consequential anomalies on the application and continuance of the death penalty as part of the regulating system towards developing peace and security in the society continue to cause confusion. Nevertheless, there is one core reason why death penalty is continuously being applied all throughout the different regions of the world, the desire to instill fear and caution among individuals who have the plan or have the possibility of defiling the rights of others to a secure sense of living. The very idea of ‘death’ or ‘dying in the hands of the law’ is specifically expected to loom over the heads of the people, practically guiding them to make the proper decision even before letting their rage or anger take over their thoughts causing them to accomplish particular crimes against others (Dellapiana, 2007). This hope of imposing psychological impact on the society is still seen by law enforcers to have a positive controlling effect to the current system of matters occurring in the world today.
True, with the distinctive condition on understanding what is more important between the life that was lost and the life that was still to be lost for the price of a crime that has been committed by an individual, debaters and academic scholars continue to seek the right answer towards the proper application of death penalty as part of the regulative law on societies of civilized human generations. The consideration on the valuation of life as it is and the contradicting factors that indicate the assumption of control on how the people in the society are supposed to mandate themselves especially in relation to dealing and managing their rage and their individual differences between each other (SCD, 2004). Managing the current situation of an overly populated community of diverse individuals is a specifically hard condition to deal with, at times, harsh punishments become one of the most probable sources of social conviction on what is right and what is wrong thus allowing the people to comprehend fully on how they should decide regarding their emotional outbursts against their fellowmen.
- Dellapiana, R. (2007). Should We Put the Death Penalty on the Chopping Block? Utah Bar Journal.
- Supreme Court Debates. (2004). Death Penalty in America: A Cultural and Historical Analysis. American Congressional Digest.
- Zivot, JB. (2012). The absence of cruelty is not the presence of humanness: physicians and the death penalty in United States. Zivot Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicines.