Death penalty: Penalty for which the guilty party of a crime must be executed.

Every day, they execute someone as punishment for a variety of crimes,

sometimes for acts that do not have to be punished. In some countries it may be
because of their sexuality; in others, this punishment is reserved for acts of
terrorism or murder.

Some countries execute people who are under 18 at the time the crime was
committed, other countries apply the death penalty to people with mental disorders.
Often, before being executed, these people remain imprisoned for years on the
"death row". They do not know when their time will come, nor will they be able to
see their family again before they die.

The death penalty is cruel, inhuman and degrading. Amnesty International opposes
the death penalty in all cases, irrespective of who is accused, their guilt or
innocence, the crime committed or the method used for execution.

In 1977 it began to try to eliminate the death penalty, only 16 countries had
completely abolished the death penalty. Today the figure rises to 104, more than
half of the countries in the world.

Arguments against the existence of the death penalty

 Ethical arguments

Life as a basic and indispensable fundamental right for states: In civilized

countries, life is the supreme good for people and society, it is the fundamental
right. Death is absolute evil, so it is immoral to rejoice in it or provoke it to obtain a
profit from it.

The state was created to protect the life and common interests of people, and has
no right to take life. Furthermore, at least for believers, life should be considered
sacred, and only for God, who orders "you will not kill", and who is the only one
who has to decide when each person arrives at the time of death.

Giving the State the right to kill, even if only in the circumstances, breaks the
principle of the intangibility of human life derived from our dignity as human beings.

A State that can commit "legal murders" becomes a danger for the citizen,
abandons the principles of humanity and respect for human rights, and puts
himself at the same level as the criminal he killed to achieve his ends, thereby
morally it is not different from the criminal who despised those values that the State
should defend.
The end doesn't justify the means: Nor assuming that the death penalty was
effective for the prevention of crimes, it would be admissible, since the end should
not justify the means if they are seriously immoral.

It would also be effective to avoid serious crimes, keep us under surveillance with
cameras at all times and places completely, eliminate the secrecy of
communications, limit freedom of movement, among others. But all this would be
immoral and typical of an authoritarian police state in which a dignified life would
not be possible.

Capital punishment is cruel and threatens human dignity, by its nature and
the methods to execute it: If torture and mutilation, or even public humiliation, are
rejected among civilized persons as punishment for crimes because of their
manifestly cruel, inhuman and unworthy character, the death penalty should be
rejected with greater motive, which is even worse.

The death penalty, whatever the method with which it is executed, causes extreme
psychological suffering. Relatives and friends, who are completely innocent of the
crime being punished, often suffer as much as the victim, but for a longer time
(also after the execution)

The execution of the death penalty generates deranged orphans, widows and
traumatized widowers, horrified brothers, and deep, lasting, cruel and totally
undeserved affliction to many innocent people close to the executed.

In addition, it implies the existence of methods of execution, all of them cruel and
inhuman: execution, hanging, strangulation by vile sticks, stabbing, stoning,
dismemberment, decapitation with sword or ax, electric chair, lethal injection.

Sometimes, the attempt to kill does not succeed at first, having to repeat the
murderous attempts, causing more pain and anguish to those executed and their
relatives or people who witness the execution or know of it.

The death penalty is not justice, but revenge: Although the desire for revenge is
humanly understandable, it cannot base a criminal system on a Rule of Law, nor is
the just penalty the one my desire for vengeance demands.

The acceptance by the State of the idea that death can be an adequate
punishment legitimizes death, which is absolute evil, and the idea of revenge, and
contributes to raising the social acceptance of private revenge and the use of
violence.
The application of the primitive Law of the Talion (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth, a life for a life) duplicates the evil, but does not mitigate it, so that society as
a whole suffers even more as a consequence of the execution of revenge.

Capital punishment does not rehabilitate: In a civilized criminal system,

penalties must be directed not only to restore justice and prevent crime, but also to
rehabilitate criminals.

The death penalty removes the possibility for the criminal to amend and reconcile
with society and with the victims of crime, and the possibility of attempting to
compensate or compensate the victim.

The death penalty allows very serious and irreparable judicial errors: We do
not live in an ideal world, nor is such an ideal world possible, and mistakes are
relatively frequent.

Judges or juries arbitrary, corrupt, crazy, politicized, fanatical, or racist or

prejudiced; witnesses, policemen who are wrong, lie or are incompetent; lawyers
who because of inexperience, incapacity or lack of interest or other reasons do
their work badly.

The police or judicial bodies may err in ascertaining the truth, in assessing the
author's personal circumstances that influenced his or her guilt or responsibility, or
in determining the just penalty for the alleged criminal.

In the face of the same crime committed, defendants with greater economic
capacity are usually able to avoid the death penalty by being able to afford to hire
more capable lawyers committed to their case; the poor, the uneducated or those
with mental problems or those belonging to socially discriminated minorities tend to
be more likely to be condemned to death.

The irreversibility of the death penalty implies the impossibility of compensation of

victims of judicial errors, and that many innocent people or not so seriously guilty
as to deserve it are executed, which is morally inadmissible, and seriously
undermines the legitimacy of the legal system that is based on the presumption of
justice.

Ethically, capital punishment is particularly reprehensible in countries

where:

 It is used to death penalty after trials without due process guarantees for the
accused to guarantee a fair trial (without the right to counsel, without the
right to an impartial judge, without knowing the accusation, without the right
to appeal the sentence, with confessions obtained under torture)
  Very cruel means of execution (stoning) are used.
 Executed minors or mentally retarded, elderly, or pregnant women
 The death penalty is used for the purpose of political repression

Executions are public, to mock the condemned.

 Arguments against the utility of the death penalty

Lack of true deterrent effectiveness: The death penalty did not help to avoid
more crimes than long prison sentences. Since executions are no longer carried
out in public in civilized countries, most of the alleged exemplary impact of them is
lost.

In the USA, where the death penalty still applies with certain frequency, there are
many more murders than in Europe, where such a penalty does not exist.

In the USA, where the death penalty has been abolished, serious crime has not
increased after abolition. Whoever commits a murder either does so in a more or
less unreflective and emotional moment, or does so with great planning, hoping not
to be caught.

Lack of satisfaction of the offended: To the deceased, no one can compensate

them. Studies indicate that the relatives of the victims do not feel consoled or
satisfied after the execution, or at least they are not more so than before the
imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment, and on the contrary the imposition of
this penalty increases the horror of what happened.

This argument, however, has been refuted by certain people, since some families
of the victims affirm that, only after the execution of the executioner of their loved
ones, is that they could find some peace and begin to rebuild their lives.

Great cost of capital punishment: The death penalty is for longer means than life
imprisonment or long years of imprisonment, except logically in the states in which
prisoners are summarily executed through processes without the minimum
guarantees (Iran, China).

In the most civilized states that still apply the death penalty (USA), before reaching
someone, you can find in a resource of appeal, suspension of sentences or
applications for pardon, which mean years, or sometimes even Dozens of years,
fighting before the courts, which generates expenses in vain, trials and prosecutors
and other procedures.

The death penalty can be criminogenic: Committed a capital crime, the criminal
has nothing to lose, so the other crimes "get free." You can continue to kill, for
example, the police that come to die, or the witnesses, hoping to escape
punishment. He has to avoid at all costs to be stopped, cost other people's blood.

While locked for years, waiting for the next time may become more important than
waiting. If, for example, a violation is punishable by capital punishment, the rapist is
violated for the victim to death, thus getting rid of an incriminating crime without the
penalty being more than homicide.

Occurs, out of fear, false confessions of detainees and wrongful convictions:

The threat of the death penalty produces the same effects as torture: It makes
certain accused agree with the police or the prosecution and accept unfair
penalties, even for crimes not committed, before the possibility of being sentenced
to death if they do not "confess" .

It is not necessary to prevent new crimes of the condemned: The possibility of

prisoners sentenced to many years in prison fleeing or committing serious crimes
for society is, with modern high security prisons, practically negligible.

This argument, on the other hand, has also been criticized. In addition to the cases
of leaks, pardons, among others; there is the possibility that gangsters, terrorist
leaders, among others; continue to direct their organizations from prison or the
same recidivism within it.

As a counter-argument it is argued that these internal aspects of the prison should

be improved with greater and better security and coordination. They also intend to
increase the isolation of the criminal leader. Ending the life of the said delinquent
only hides the deficiency of security.

 Arguments of authority

Innumerable philosophers, politicians, religious and intellectuals have opposed the

death penalty. Most democratic and developed countries have abolished the death
penalty.

 The problem

It is irreversible and mistakes are made: Execution is the ultimate penalty and is
irrevocable, and the risk of executing innocent people can never be ruled out.

Since 1973, 150 people who had been sentenced to death have been exonerated
in the United States. Others have been executed despite serious doubts about
their guilt.

It does not deter crime: Countries that maintain the death penalty often claim that it
is a deterrent against crime.
This position has been repeatedly discredited. There is no evidence to show that it
is more effective than when it comes to reducing crime.

Usually used in biased justice systems: Some of the countries that execute the
most people have largely unfair judicial systems. In the three countries where
capital punishment is most widely used (China, Iran and Saudi Arabia), death
sentences have been handed down after unfair trials.

Many death sentences are based on "confessions" of torture for torture.

Formal discrimination applies: If you are poor or belong to a racial, ethnic or

religious minority, you are more likely than other people to be sentenced to death,
due to the discrimination that exists in the justice system.