Home >> United States & Canada >> Courts & Laws

     Email   Print 

The Death debate

Geetanjali Jha - 4/24/2008

Recently, the Supreme Court of United States of America rejected a challenge to the use of lethal three-drug cocktail injections used in most U.S. executions. The case and its consequent decision in favor of the method of execution has once again triggered the long and emotional debate on death penalty; its justification, ethics and human rights. The case, made by two death row inmates convicted of murder and sentenced to death, was based on the eighth amendment of the US constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

There have been 1,099 executions in the United States since 1977. The peak year was 1999, when 98 were carried out while no inmates were put to death in 1978 and 1980. The death penalty is sanctioned by 37 of the 50 states and the U.S. government and the military. The questions regarding justifications of death penalty keeps resurfacing. Is it justified to take the life of a murdered in order to seek redemption? Do we have no respect of human life? Or is the opposite true - that since we have deep regard for the miracle of human life that we should favor capital punishment. Anything less than capital punishment would be an insult to it victim and humanity. At the same time, doesn't it violate the very standard it seeks to enforce i.e. Not to Kill.

The morality of capital punishment lies in the fact that the crime committed is heinous. Will murder be taken seriously if the penalty isn't equally as serious? A crime, after all, is only as severe as the punishment that follows it. Former New York Mayor Edward Koch said: "It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life." The attention given to the execution of murderers is sickening, especially when the loudest voices think the death of a convicted murderer is a misfortune. While the deaths and suffering of countless victims is only an easily-ignored statistic.

Millions of human beings are sacrificed in brutal ways to defend their nation from the aggression of other countries. In fact, it can be reasonably argued that war is far more barbarous than the death penalty is. It is hypocritical that the same countries who have abolished capital punishment because it is "barbaric" to defend public safety that way are at the same time prepared to enforce political power and defend their territorial claims through infinitely more violence and bloodshed than the death penalty would ever require.

As aptly pointed out by Donald Atwell Zoll, Professor of Political Science at Arizona State University: "Capital punishment ought not to be abolished solely because it is...repulsive, if infinitely less repulsive than the acts which invoke it...If we are to preserve a humane society we will have to retain sufficient strength of character and will to do the unpleasant in order that tranquility and civility may rule comprehensively."

Abolitionists claim that there are alternatives to the death penalty. They say that life in prison without parole serves just as well. Criminals can commit murders within prison when they kill prison guards and other inmates.

Many support capital punishment because they believe it is cheaper to execute than to imprison. Despite the intuitive appeal of the cheaper-to-execute notion, it is false. The cost of Life without Parole is high but the cost of capital punishment is higher. The use of experts – mental health professionals, polygraphists, additional attorneys, medical and forensic experts add to the cost. The elaborate appeals process also adds to the cost.

In addition to that, life imprisonment tends to change with the passing of time. Take the Moore case in New York State for example.

In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he is sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on in 1982, due to a change in the laws in 1982 James Moore was eligible for parole every two years!

One argument states that the death penalty does not deter murder. Dismissing capital punishment on that basis requires us to eliminate all prisons as well because they do not seem to be any more effective in the deterrence of crime. Capital punishment is capable of deterring murder if we allow it to. Several reforms need to be the justice system so the death penalty can cause a positive effect. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Others say that states which do have the death penalty have higher crime rates than those that don't, that a more severe punishment only inspires more severe crimes. Strongly urbanized states are more likely to have higher crime rates than states that are more rural, such as those that lack capital punishment. The states that have capital punishment are compelled to have it due to their higher crime rates, not the other way around.

Cornerstone of human rights is respect for the inherent dignity of all human beings and the inviolability of the human person. These principles cannot be squared with the death penalty, a form of punishment unique in its cruelty and finality, and a punishment inevitably and universally plagued with arbitrariness, prejudice, and error.


As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated. Since 1973, 122 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Its imposition is irreversible which deprives an individual the right to benefit from new evidence that might lead to the reversal of a conviction

Nearly four centuries have passed since the first documented execution on American soil took place in 1608 and throughout U.S history, the number of death sentences have always been small when compared with the number of murders. With a yearly average of 15,000 murders, the fact that USA is reaching 1,100 executions in only a little more than 40 years is proof that capital punishment has been reserved for the worst of the worst.

Further, the threat of Death Penalty is not going to prevent crimes that are not pre-meditative. Also, it is not going to prevent political motivated crimes and acts of terror. Most Capital crimes are committed in the heat of the moment or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended.

Another conflicting view is that the dignity of the victims should be restored by providing them justice. Justice is about enforcing consequences for one's own actions to endorse personal responsibility. We cannot expect anyone to take responsibility for their own action if these consequences are not enforced in full.

Recognition that the death penalty violates basic human rights has fueled a growing movement to abolish capital punishment around the world. Right to Life now, includes several other rights in its ambit like – the Right to Food, Right to Employment and the Right to proper Medical facilities. On the other hand, death penalty too is increasing in its number and scope.

Hence, the debate continues. Despite the global shift away from death penalty, there remain a number of countries along with USA where the death penalty is retained. In view of the irreversible nature of the death penalty, trials in capital punishment cases must abide by international standards restricting the scope of the death penalty and ensure compliance with the most rigorous standard for a fair trial.