Throughout recorded history executions have been used to enforce laws, punish violators, deter criminal acts, punish sin and support societal hysteria. The means of carrying out an execution hasn’t changed very much, if at all, throughout the years. Depending on the location and point in time you will find beheadings (by sword or guillotine), hangings (for the purpose of asphyxiation or by breaking the neck), burning at the stake, shootings, electrocutions or injections. There isn’t a universal consensus regarding the justness of capital punishment, as it is referred to today (it is a bit more palatable sounding than execution), but there is one point that all people can agree on; the person being executed will never commit another crime.
In order to classify capital punishment as just, it would need to meet three characteristics: deterrence, restitution and retribution. Some questions to consider: Does putting an offender to death deter that offender from committing further crimes? Does it prevent observers from committing crimes for fear of receiving the same punishment? Does killing a murderer or other convicted individual make restitution for their crimes (obviously taking the life of one cannot restore the life of another)? Does the death of the offender fulfill retribution to the surviving victims?
As has already been mentioned, the offender who is put to death will never offend again. If justice involves preventing future crime then the death penalty is effective for the one individual. But is it effective at preventing other people in society from committing crimes? By looking to history we see that this is not the case. Death sentences were rampant during the 17th and 18th centuries in England. There were over 200 crimes with the penalty of death attached. If the sentence of death was an effective deterrent, 18th century England should have been a crime-free zone, which it was not. Research has been done in modern days and in the United States of America regarding the effect of the death penalty. A quick search of the Internet will reveal data that does not support the death penalty as an effective deterrent outside of the person executed. Besides, doesn’t it seem slightly backwards for us to kill in order to teach that killing is not right?
For the case of restitution (meaning the offender restoring what they have taken unlawfully), the death penalty has its greatest claim for being just. When one person takes the life of another in the act of homicide, there is no way for the offender to make up for what has been taken. No murderer can restore life to their victim. Without making this debate a religious one, it is safe to say that the balance of fairness would require giving back whatever has been unlawfully taken. In this case, to be just, a murderer would have to give back the life they have taken. As this is impossible, the next best thing is for the murderer to give up their own life. If there is a case to be made for the justness of capital punishment it is to be found here. However, is it the same thing for a State to take the life of the offender as for the offender to voluntarily give up their life as a symbol of restitution? Does forced restitution bring justice?
In the wake of a crime being committed, there are hardly ever single victims. In the case of homicide this statement is true. Parents of a child, children of a parent, siblings and friends are all affected when their family member or loved one is the victim of a crime. Many times, these all will seek retribution. This is frequently found in the punishment of the offender. Retribution may be seen as the natural consequence of the initial criminal act; it is essentially cause and effect. Crime and punishment go hand in hand when talking about justice. So does retribution make the death penalty just? Must retribution equate to the taking of the life of a murderer to grant the surviving victim’s closure and a feeling that justice and fairness have prevailed?
In the argument of whether or not the death penalty is just, I side with the claim that it is unjust. I don’t believe that “an eye for an eye” is the best way, though it certainly has its benefits and gives a feeling of justice being served. The argument for capital punishment as a deterrent removes all rights of the offender. I do not believe that a criminal offender loses all natural rights for this one act. As a societal deterrent for others, I do not believe it is effective. For restitution, I believe that the only appropriate restitution that can be made for taking the life of another person is to freely offer your own. If the life of the offender is taken without them realizing their error, I do not believe justice has been issued in its best form. Retribution is a hard point to refute because of the emotion attached; however, I fear that it is too close to revenge to allow it to be used in the argument for justice. If retribution can be obtained without anger and hate on the part of the surviving victims them perhaps it has merit. The death penalty can have an attempted claim at being just in instances of something being taken which cannot be given back, such as life (either by murder or rape). For many other crimes the death penalty is a selfish and unforgiving act founded in a disregard for the life of other people.