Should The Death Penalty Be Mandatory For Homicide?

Should The Death Penalty Be Mandatory For Homicide? Death penalty is considered to be a cruel and inhuman punishment for crimes mostly for the murder since 19th century. Death penalty is also called capital punishment which is the supreme punishment of murder or killing. Death penalty in Texas, in USA for homicide is shouldnt be mandatory because it is a brutal and inhuman punishment. Texas has the record for the number of executions. This death penalty issue is a controversial issue because some states and people think that the use of capital punishment should be mandatory for all murders otherwise the number of homicide or crimes will be increased dramatically and the criminal will get more chance to do more crimes like homicide. Besides this most of the nongovernmental institution like Amnesty International, United Nation does not want to let the death penalty mandatory for murders. According to Irene Khan, the secretary general of Amnesty International, The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Beh eadings, electrocutions, hangings, lethal injections, shootings and stoning have no place in the 21st century (Amnesty International USA, Death Penalty: 2,390 executions in 2008 worldwide, 72 per cent in China). States of Texas use electric chair, lethal injection, lethal gas, hanging, and firing squad to execute the guilty. Firstly, I believe that punishment like death penalty for homicide which is an in justification to human being and violation of human rights should not be mandatory. Secondly, the cost of death penalty for homicide is higher than the cost for the sentencing alternative of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. (The Death Penalty: Specific Issues). Thirdly, the danger of erroneous convictions and executions of the innocent people may increase because of the usage of false testimony, the willful suppression of evidence, and coerced a confession. Again, People have the right to live. Who gave the right to the state to take a decision of capital punishment against a person? (The Death Penalty V Human Rights: Why abolish the death penalty? September 2007). Firstly, death penalty for homicide is a violation of fundamental human rights. For homicide death penalty should not be compulsory because it offers society not further protection but further brutalization. The state can exercise no greater power over a person than that of deliberately depriving him or her of life. However, the state does has the right to punish a person by sentencing him or her to death? From the critics view the answer should be No. (The Death Penalty V Human Rights: Why abolish the death penalty? September 2007). Capital punishment denies the legal process of law. The approval of death penalty is contradictory to law where the human rights is being preserved. The imposement of death penalty differs because of the color of the people and the financial condition which is injustice and against human rights. In June 29, 1972, the US Supreme Court declared capital punishment as a cruel and unusual punishment which proves that death penalty is a violation of human righ ts and injustice to the people. (Death Row Facts: Texas Department of Criminal Justice). A person who is innocent but punished for the deeds which he or she did not is a clear violation of human rights. Secondly, death penalty for homicide in Texas should not be mandatory because of the knowing use of false testimony, the willful suppression of evidence, and coerced a confession which has, at times, resulted in the conviction and execution of innocent persons on capital punishment. Factors like police and prosecutorial misconduct, misinterpretation, inadequate legal representation, undeveloped technology also lead the judge to give a punishment like death penalty for homicide which shouldnt be done with the people who are innocent. In USA since 1973, because of the evidence of their wrongful convictions, over 130 people have been released from the death row. And in Texas the release of four men from the death row on grounds of innocence prove that death penalty for homicide is a wrong decision. (Regional summaries, Death Penalty and Innocence: Amnesty International USA). For example, Randall Dale Adams and Clarence Brandley was the victims of the misconduct of the judges and was rel eased from the death row after years of struggle to prove them innocent (C. Dieter, Richard: The Future of Death Penalty in the U.S.: A Texas Sized Crisis). Thirdly, the cost of death penalty for homicide is higher than the cost for the life imprisonment which is an alternative to death penalty. If it is mandatory for all murders the cost will increase more and more. In death penalty for homicide, large proportion of the money spent prior to and during the trial. There is a little cost in post-conviction of proceedings in death penalty. Even if the cost of post-conviction is being eliminated, the cost of the death penalty for homicide still would be more expensive than other alternative punishments. From the survey on Texas about the cost of the death penalty we can see that the cost of death penalty for homicide is estimated $2.3 million per case with having 300 people on the death row and the homicide rate in this state is one of the highest in the country. The expansion of death penalty shrinking the budget of the sates for police departments, drug treatment programs, education, and other government services that help prevent crime. I n Texas a homicide death penalty costs taxpayers accounting $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a cell at the highest level for 40 years. (Ellis, What Politician Dont Say About the High Cost of Death Penalty). In addition, Taxes spent approximately  £183.2 million dollar in just six years on the death penalty for homicide. As US Supreme Court ruled that the jury must be informed in advance if the defendant would be eligible for parole whenever a sentencing jury has the ability to impose death penalty (Capital Punishment, Death penalty data). The use of parole makes the capital punishment very costly. People who support the death penalty to be mandatory for homicide argue that death penalty deter capital crime. They refer that death is the surest way to bring it about the most total prevention from functioning in a normal way and irrevocable. People fear about being punished by sentencing to death before doing any homicide. Because of the death penalty for homicide criminals think before doing anything wrong. (Den Haag, The Death Penalty: A Debate). Again, there is no way to make a wrong decision for the judge which will cause the life of an innocent people. The judge consider everything such as the mode of incident, explanation from the witness and obviously the technology like DNA test, medical inspection of the body which makes the case easier for the authority to identify and sentenced to capital punishment of the guilty. Furthermore, Firstly, Death penalty doesnt deter crime because there are enough potential murderers to replace all those incapacitated. Crime rates are influenced by the other factors not because of the capital punishment. The threat of life in prison deters more than any other term of punishment like death penalty for homicide. Life in prison is unpleasant and horrible than the death penalty and painful to die by the passage of time. It makes the feelings of the prisoner to die than living in such a condition which create mental illness for them. By sentencing to prison make an example for the murderers from where they can realize the harsh punishment. However, criminal who are adamant to do murder cant be controlled or kept quiet whatever the punishment it is. As we can see from the research on Texas, the crime rate grew up by 24% and 46% of violent crime. (C. Dieter, Richard: The Future of Death Penalty in the U.S.: A Texas Sized Crisis). Secondly, the argument named the killing of innocent th at death penalty supporter shows for homicide is not true because there is a great chance of doing something wrong about justification. Human beings are not out of making wrong decision and the judges do too. Again the use of technology in identifying criminals is not available all over. The use of new technology like DNA and other medical instrument which are very expensive and states like developing and poor countries can not afford this type advance technology. In conclusion, we can say that death penalty for homicide is controversial issue all over the world. The use of death penalty may cause the life of innocent people as the use of false testimony, the willful suppression of evidence, and coerced a confession. The use of death penalty for homicide is a very costly one because of the trial which means the cost of pre-conviction proceedings. Death penalty is a violation of fundamental human rights. People have the right to live. A judge cannot decide whether a person should die or not. The creator has created us and will make the decision whether a person should die or not. The prison system should be more about rehabilitation than simply introducing capital punishment or removing the criminal from society. It costs a few dollars per day to have a parole officer check on a parolee than the huge cost of death penalty. And it could be an example for the murderers. I believe that we are human being and we are beyond mistake. Death penalty do esnt deter crime as it is a simple way than making the life imprisonment which makes the life of a criminal terrible in every step. However, we should give a chance to the criminal to correct as forgiving is great virtue. Proper steps should be taken to abolish capital punishment and make the world to be free from cruel and inhuman punishment.