Custom essays on Is the Death Penalty Just?

The issue of the death penalty has been relevant in varying degrees since the establishment of a state. Historically, the death penalty has “evolved” from the ancient custom of blood revenge, which existed in the pre-state society. With the development of state, punitive functions have gradually moved to a special state apparatus. The murder of an offender has gained the status of criminal punishment, executed on behalf of the government. Death penalty has always evoked controversies and arguments. Arguments in favor and against death penalty can be found in religious texts. Various politicians and public figures take the position of either abolition, or permission of the death penalty. The following arguments can be distinguished among the main ones:
Arguments in favor of the death penalty include economic injustice of life sentence; the death penalty as a moral argument; the right to revenge; the death penalty as an act of humanism; the death penalty as a form of social protection.
The main arguments against the death penalty are the possibility of a miscarriage of justice; the death penalty having no deterrent effect on potential criminals; the death penalty does not guarantee the reduction of crime; the capital punishment does not influence the social factors that breed crime; the death penalty has been used for centuries but it has not eliminated the crime; the death penalty dehumanizes the society, the death penalty reflects the political and cultural backwardness of societies; its contravention to international norms; the immorality of the economic argument.
In any case, the true purpose of any punishment is the protection of the society and its individuals. Protection against high-risk offenders can be carried out in two ways; either by their complete isolation or by deprivation of their life. It is noticeable that both measures exclude the correction of the convicted person. Is rehabilitation of a man possible in a cruel, inhuman, criminal environment? Statistical data are not for the rehabilitation either: 30-40% of the released ones soon return to the prison once again, and many of the released have remained uncaught (Latessa, 2005).
The legislators should make clear how the punishment is seen and what its purposes are. If to admit that there is a category of incorrigible offenders, the death penalty, life imprisonment and long sentences are quite natural and logical (though not morally justified). The question is if they are incorrigible and if the society and the state simply have no other way, what is immoral in such punishments? But if to recognize that the criminals are not incorrigible but intractable, then the life imprisonment and the death penalty should be excluded from the system of criminal penalties. And then the punishment is the forced limitation of human rights and freedoms. The criminal and criminal executive legislation should, most of all, comply with the principles of humanism and democracy. But how can it be implemented in practice?