Home > Human rights essays > Why does the death penalty exist in countries claiming to protect and respect human rights?

Essay: Why does the death penalty exist in countries claiming to protect and respect human rights?

Essay details and download:

  • Subject area(s): Human rights essays
  • Reading time: 5 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 15 October 2019*
  • Last Modified: 22 July 2024
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 1,230 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 5 (approx)
  • Tags: Death penalty essays

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 1,230 words.

” The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it.”

Death penalty in a today’s world is a very controversial subject. It is mostly banned and not used in practice, but some countries still retain the right to punish its citizens in such a way, some of which are The United States, China, and Saudi Arabia. Most recently, there was an attempted coup in Turkey, where Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan after the failed attempt to overthrow him called for return of the capital punishment in use, which has caused further deterioration of the relationship between Turkey and the European Union. On historical examples we can see it brought more evil than good. Before the creation of the prison system, death penalty was a common type of punishment. During the reign of Henry VIII it is estimated that around 72, 000 people were executed {X}. Since 1961, Amnesty International has tirelessly fought to abolish the death penalty completely, and were successful in most cases. Death penalty is a violation of human rights and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is not just, and more often than not, it is misused to advance one’s personal interests. Death penalty has no place in the 21st century in societies that claim to be civilized. It is a cruel and inhumane practice that has to be ended.

Death penalty is a violation and a complete denial of human rights. UN condemned it in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration says that every individual has a right to protection from deprivation of life, and that nobody should be subjected to cruel or degrading punishments. Both rights are broken by allowing death penalty to be used. The Declaration is a pledge among member nations as the foundation of all we hold sacred, freedom, justice and peace. Those rights should be a limitation of what a government can do to a man, a woman, or a child. No matter what method or reason is used to execute somebody, it does not give justification to the act. The state cannot exercise greater power than taking somebody’s life. Death penalty is an act carried out in the name of a whole nation against a certain individual, which means it involves everybody, and yet, only a certain number of people decide on the victim’s fate. There can never be a justification for a cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of a person, and what is an execution but an extreme physical and mental attack on a person who is already made helpless by government authorities. If every country claims to protect and respect human rights, why are there still places where people are executed? If there is a declaration that is accepted by everybody, why do we still witness the rise in the number of executed every year? The cruelty of death penalty should be clear to everybody by now, even those countries using death punishment as a way to advance their own personal interests.

Death penalty is not even near to a just punishment. If death punishment can be justified for one crime, it becomes justifiable to be used for any other crime deemed necessary by society, or a certain group of individuals that see an advantage in such an action. Countless men and women have been executed for the purpose of preventing crime. Nobody can gurantee that person who was executed would repeat the crime he/she commited. By executing him/her, you do ensure that he/she does not repeat it, but it removes any justice from it. Dangerous offenders can be kept away safely from society without resorting to execution, which is visible in the examples of many abolitionist countries.  The emotional impulse of wanting revenge against somebody who took the life of another individual is not a sufficient justification to take one’s life. ”Allowing executions sanctions killings as a form of a payback.“ Society never survived on a belief that an eye should be taken for an eye. We do not allow torturing those who tortured somebody else, or raping the one who raped another person, so why should we allow killing of the one who killed another? Mistakes are bound to happen as well. How many times has one heard that in the light of new evidence it has been proven that a person who was executed was actually not guilty of a crime that he/she was accused of? It is a very flawed punishment that has many faults. We cannot allow ourselves to have such a system in the 21st century.

Death penalty is used as a political tool to advance somebody’s interests. It is a fact that most people are executed in places that have political systems that only remain in a few countries, such as North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and China. Certain governments see executions as a way to control the number of poor people, and when the number exceeds a certain limit, accuse them of crimes and execute them. It is also fact that you are more likely to be executed the poorer you are. In a system such as Saudi Arabia, it is a common practice that groups that gain political power execute those who opposed them. Last year, there was an incident where a leader of a rival political party, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr was killed after his opponents won the election. Throughout history, certain systems also targeted minorities, and saw this as a way to get rid of them. An example would be the United States, where in the Southern part it was a common practice that newly freed former slaves were accused of crimes, and executed. It was a hate crime. Even today, according to statistics {X} 94.5% of prosecutors in the whole United States are white.

Very often those in favor of death penalty use certain arguments to fight the arguments of those who wish it abolished. They claim that the death penalty is a just system that we have to use because it ensures a safer and more productive society. They claim because prisons get overcrowded we should execute prisoners because that is the only way to ensure that the number stays under control. This is constantly proven wrong by the abolitionist countries, they do not have problem with overcrowding and yet are not executing people. Prisons should not only be a place for punishment. Very often criminals come from poor backgrounds, and need help. It should be a place for rehabilitation into the society for most, but death punishment should not be even an option. Dangerous criminals can be locked away for a lifetime without killing them. Another claim they have is that the knowledge that the possible punishment is death deters crime from happening. However, there is no actual proof of this. Experts say that crimes happen when people are desperate or/and not in their right state of mind {X}. There is also an argument that death penalty saves lives. It is claimed that the person when he serves his sentence might go out and commit the same crime again. Although, this is a possible worst case scenario, we cannot know if somebody will kill again. That person needs help, and if during his time in prison it is seen that he cannot leave prison, he/she should not freed.

Discover more:

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Why does the death penalty exist in countries claiming to protect and respect human rights?. Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/human-rights-essays/2016-12-3-1480778701/> [Accessed 18-11-24].

These Human rights essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on EssaySauce.com and/or Essay.uk.com at an earlier date than indicated.