Death Penalty

OUTLINE

Thesis Statement: Although supposed as an effective way of fighting crime and criminals, I strongly believe that death penalty is a violation of human rights.

I. Living as a human right like freedom of speech, belief and so on

II. Unfair application of death penalty

III. Death penalty not a more effective deterrent than imprisonment as suggested by supporters of the application

Conclusion

Onur Aydın

Research and Writing Process

Throughout history, people have been fighting against crime and been looking for a way to cope with it. Death penalty is one of the ideas that are suggested and it has been approached with various reactions, which caused a still ongoing debate over its righteousness. To understand the archaic dimension of death penalty, we can note that “the first record of the death penalty for criminal acts can be found in the Code of Hammurabi of Babylon, more than 4,000 years ago.” ( Baker 206 ) Of course, there has not been a consensus over this issue, naturally leading into two groups; those who support and others who oppose. Both groups have their own reasons. Supporters claim that it lowers the rate of crime and is a well-functioning deterrant rather than other punishments such as long-term imprisonment and imprisonment for life. Opponents, on the other hand, suggest that it is a violation of human rights and it is used as an abusive method in racial issues. In agreement with the opponents, I strongly believe that death penalty is a violation of human rights, although supposed as an effective way of fighting crime. To begin with, every individual is born with equal rights and no one is superior to another. Among these equal rights, the right to live is the most significant. No matter what crime a person commits, he or she still has the right to live as his/her most basic right. These rights that I am talking about are gained after a long and hard struggle and are indispensable for every individual. The International Declaration of Human Rights, for instance, was the model adopted by many other following declarations and treaties. Furthermore, one who supports death penalty has to question himself. How is killing someone who committed murder not cruel as the murder itself? When you sentence a person to death penalty, will you not be committing the same cruelty as the murderer you are punishing? Also, in regards with administrative concerns, death penalty is unfairly applied. . “It is usually minorities and the poor who are sentenced to death.” ( Keil 511-35 ) This is a whole another dimension of adversaries of the issue. The immorality of death penalty here intertwines with the status discrimination. This means those who are in favour of death penalty are not after justice and where discrimination begins, it is impossible to speak of equality, which is again the violation of human rights. Some argue that death sentence is a much more effective way of fighting crime than other ways of punishment and it is an absolute deterrent. "The most frequently advanced and widely accepted argument in favor of the death penalty is that the threat of its infliction deters people from committing capital offenses." (Caldwell 50) Upon this argument, there have been some studies conducted especially in the United States. However, these studies have failed to prove the hypothesis that death penalty is a much more effective deterrent than other punishments, as we can see from the statement made as a result of the studies: "The available evidence remains 'clear and abundant ' that, as practiced in the United States, capital punishment is not more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder." ( Bailey 155) As proved by the studies, death penalty is not as effective as supposed. To conclude, death penalty is no more than violence and violates human rights with its immoral ways. It also does not have the effect which is supposedly attributed to it. Its hidden dimension of status discrimination is another threat for social order as well. I think one who is still in favour of this cruelty should question his/her conscience all over again.

Works Cited
Bailey, William C. Punishment and Deterrence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1991. pp. 155.
Baker, David N., Eric Lambert and Morris Jenkins. Journal of Black Studies. Vol. 35, No. 4 (Mar., 2005), pp. 201-224. Sage Publications, Inc. .
Caldwell, G. Robert. “Why is the Death Penalty Retained?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol.284 (Nov., 1952) pp. 45-53. Sage Publications, Inc.
Keil, Thomas J. and Gennaro F. Vito. “Race, Homicide Severity, and Application of the Death Penalty: A Consideration of the Barnett Scale.” Criminology. Vol.27. pp. 511-35. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; 1989.

Cited: Bailey, William C. Punishment and Deterrence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1991. pp. 155. Baker, David N., Eric Lambert and Morris Jenkins. Journal of Black Studies. Vol. 35, No. 4 (Mar., 2005), pp. 201-224. Sage Publications, Inc. . Caldwell, G. Robert. “Why is the Death Penalty Retained?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol.284 (Nov., 1952) pp. 45-53. Sage Publications, Inc. Keil, Thomas J. and Gennaro F. Vito. “Race, Homicide Severity, and Application of the Death Penalty: A Consideration of the Barnett Scale.” Criminology. Vol.27. pp. 511-35. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; 1989.