OUTLINE:

I. INTRODUCTION
A.BACKGROUND

B.THESIS: DEATH SENTENCE SHOULD NOT BE ACTIVATED IN ANY

COUNTRY OF THE WORLD

II. REASONS
A.DEATH PENALTY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS
B.PUNISHMENT WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

C.THE RESOURCES USED FOR DEATH PENALTY ARE A WASTE OF

MONEY

III. COUNTER ARGUMENTS AND RESPONSES

A. JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIMS

B. MURDERERS MUST BE KILLED TO PREVENT THEM FROM MURDERING

AGAIN

IV. CONCLUSION

Why the Death Penalty should not be allowed

Since the beginning of history, the formal execution of criminals have been used in nearly all
societies. Before the origin of capital punishment used in today’s civilization, penalties
around the world included crucifixion, impalement, disembowelment, burning, decapitation,
dismemberment, and more kinds of painful punishments. In the past, some cultures used it as
punishment for magic, blasphemy, and a variety of sexual crimes including sodomy and
murder. In modern society, execution in some powerful countries as the U.S. and China, is
used primarily to punish espionage, treason, human trafficking and corruption. Nowadays,
there is a general consensus among the majority of governments about considering the death
penalty as an outrage towards human rights, specifically the right to life. However, there are
some countries that are still using it as a punishment for the most abominable crimes. In our
opinion, in spite of the gravity of the transgression, we consider that the death penalty should
not be allowed in any country of the world.

First, as we mentioned before, the death penalty is incompatible with the human rights. The
article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDHR), proclaimed in 1948 after the
World War II, states that life is a human right (Amnesty International, n.d.). This means that
the death penalty violates one of our fundamental principles and also disagrees with the
democratic system. It is necessary to understand the situation of considering the death penalty
as a conventional weapon to inflict disciplinary actions. In a near future, if it is considered
usual for governments to use it, then this could lead to the activation of the Domino Theory.
This implies that as long as governments accept the infringement of the right to eradicate
lives, other rights could be transgressed in a future too (Center for Constitutional Rights,
2012).

Second, there is possibility of punishing without sufficient evidence. Although the death
penalty process varies in each country, most of the times, it takes a long time to be executed.
In the U.S., death penalty prisoners typically spend more than a decade awaiting execution
and some of them have been on death row process for well over 20 years (Snell, 2015).
During this time, prisoners have the possibility to appeal the death penalty in different
instances in order to defend their innocence. It is supposed that the death penalty should be
applicated only when the prisoner is guilty of the crime. However, The National Registry of
Exonerations lists 106 convicts who were sentenced to death and were exonerated since 1989
in the U.S. (Gross and Shaffer, 2012). This means that some prisoners are sentenced to death
penalty even when it is possible that it is not the required punishment for their crimes.

Third, the resources used to operate a death penalty regime are a waste of money. It is not
unknown that death penalty has a cost for those countries that allows it. For example, in the
U.S., a study from Seattle University analyzed 147 aggravated first-degree murder cases
since 1997 to 2015 in Washington state. The data was separated in two groups, those who
were sentenced to death penalty and those sentenced to non-death penalty. The results
showed that a single death-penalty case costs $3.07 million, while a non-capital case costs an
average of $2.01 million, leaving a difference of about $1.06 million. This means that the
death penalty in Washington costs Americans an extra $1.15 million per case (Collins et al,
2016). In other states like Oregon and Washington, the average of a death penalty case costs
more than the average non-death penalty aggravated murder case, by US$1,035,000 and
$1,193,000, respectively (Kaplan and Collins, 2017). Those millions of dollars that a country
may spend in strategies that are known to reduce crime, for example crime prevention, mental
health treatment, education and rehabilitation, meaningful victims’ services, and drug
treatment programs, are wasted in death penalty.
Nevertheless, there is some people who supports the concept of the death penalty, giving
several arguments. One of them is the claim for justice, not only for the victim, but also for
their families. In this case, people often think in the “lex talionis”: an eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth. This means that if someone has murdered, they also have to be murdered to reach
a balance in the society. Another argument that people intend to convince is that killing
murderers prevent them to murder again. Their point of view is that there are some
unscrupulous murderers, that even in prison do not understand the consequences of their acts
or feel guilty. Hence, in the case that they get out of the jail, they would continue murdering.
For that, the death penalty helps to prevent eventual acts of violence. Yet, these people’s
reasons can be refuted. Although there is a probability that death can deter crime because
people fear it, there is no substantial evidence for that. Furthermore, police chiefs ranked the
death penalty as the least effective tool to reduce the rate of violence and crime (Bedau,
2012). In our opinion, we consider that these people believe more in revenge than justice
when talking about death penalty, so we reinforce our position that this punishment should
not be allowed.

In conclusion, the death penalty is a punishment that attempts towards the human rights, since
the right to life is violated and its application could induce the transgression of other rights.
Furthermore, the evidence for its application could be insufficient leading to a wrong
punishment. It is also a waste of money since its cost is higher than being imprisoned for a
period of time, and it could be used in other ways to deter the crime. Although justice by “lex
talionis” and the recidivism or repeated criminal behavior are argued, death penalty remains
as a proved ineffective way to reduce the rate of violence and crime. For that, governments
should abolish it and find better ways to prevent acts of violence, that can also protect and
respect the human rights.

Word Count: 1016

Reference list:

Bedau, H. (2012). The Case against the Death Penalty. ACLU. Retrieved from
https://www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-penalty?redirect=capital-
punishment/case-against-death-penalty
Collins, P.T., Boruchowitz, R. C., Hickman, M. J. & Larrañaga, M. A. (2016). An Analysis
of the Economic Costs of Seeking the Death Penalty in Washington State. Seattle
Journal for Social Justice, 10(3), 727-779.

Death Penalty. (n.d.). In Amnesty International. Retrieved October 14, 2018, from
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/

Gross, S.R., & Shaffer, M. (2012). Exonerations in the United States, 1989-2012. National
Registry of Exonerations. Retrieved October 28, 2018 from
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2092195

Kaplan, A., & Collins, P. A. (2017, March 3). The death penalty is getting more and more
expensive. Is it worth it? Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/the-death-penalty-
is-getting-more-and-more-expensive-is-it-worth-it-74294

Snell, T. L. (2014, December 19). Capital Punishment, 2013 –Statistical Tables. Retrieved
October 28, 2018, from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp13st.pdf

The Death Penalty is a Human Rights Violation: An Examination of the Death Penalty in the
U.S. from a Human Rights Perspective. (2012, May 16). In Center for Constitutional
Rights. Retrieved October 28, 2018, from
https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/files/CCR%20Death%20Penalty%20Facts
heet.pdf