Should The US ban death penalty due to Humanitarianism?

Jiancheng L


Death Penalty and Crimes

capital punishment, also called death penalty, execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense. Death Penalty has always been a very serious action in the human society. The argue around the death penalty never stop. As our civilization evolved, more and more people question, " Dose the death penalty really helps stop crimes and sins.

Covered Issues

1 What is the impact of death penalty to offenders

2 What positive emotional influences can the death penalty bring to the vitim's family.

3 What are some impact to the public and society.

results of Survey

80% of my interviewee disagree to ban the Death Penalty because they think the death penalty should exist to punish sins. 20% of the interviewee agree to ban the death penalty, because they saw some cases that mistake and kill an innocent person.

Interview Summary

The purpose of this interview was to get other peers' opinions on whether banning the Death penalty due to the humanitarianism. My interviewee is Tianle Shen, she is a 17 years old Chinese girl lives in China, she is a student now. She firmly disagrees banning the death penalty, she thinks the capital punishment is necessary to the society, it's existent can be an intimidation to the crime. I asked her, do you think the death penalty can stop the crimes. Her answer was, " I would say, it is impossible to completely stop crimes in a country or world, because in some situation, the offenders are controlled by anger, panic, and malice, the death penalty might not just pops up in their mind. But that doesn't means the death penalty should be banned. Her answer provides a interesting idea that the offenders were being controlled by the emotion not their brain, but I do think that death penalty might be a reason that cause the "panic"


Personal Opinion

I personally think that the death penalty should not be banned. The existent of death penalty is the best to deter the crimes to prevent the next person gets killed. Also, for those dangerous crimes, no one can guarantees that a criminal can rehabilitated after being incarcerated. Death penalty is a consolation to the victim's family, it is sad to see that the people killed their family still alive and don't get the justice punishment. Also, many western countries decide to ban the death penalty and the crime rate increase. And many offenders take the advantage of the banning, they mess up the society and cause other people dead, but they still alive and use the excuse of "humanitarianism" to escape the punishment.

How do you think of what some of Abolitionist claims that “The abolition of the death penalty is one of the signs of the evolution of human civilization” Norway Strongly agreed with this state, so Norway abolished the death penalty as early as 1902. On July 22 , 2011. An anti-human massacre occurred, Mr. Breivik killed 77 people in gun and bomb. After he gets arrested for 21 years. “Humanitarianism” can be explained as a belief in improving people’s lives and reducing suffering. Even though there are many western country had banned death penalty. Nevertheless, the United states shouldn’t ban death penalty,because the death penalty can prevent the victim emergys,and death penalty is consolation victims’ families and the society.

Firstly, Death penalty is most useful method to deter the crimes to preventing the next people gets killed. According to Cully Stimson’s state,“The first, general deterrence, is the message that gets sent to people who are thinking about committing heinous crimes that they shouldn’t do it or else they might end up being sentenced to death.” (Cully Stimson) If the United States bans the death penalty, some people that plan to killed some one would thinks even if they get arrested, they won’t be killed. This decision would lead to a higher crime rate. Stimson claims that “The second, specific deterrence, is specific to the defendant. It simply means that the person who is subjected to the death penalty won’t be alive to kill other people.” (Cully Stimson) No one can guarantee that a criminal will be rehabilitated after being incarcerated. So the death penalty can at least garantee the safety of victims’ families and witnesses, they won’t get revenge if the crime released from the prison. Base on the ideas above,the death penalty can go a long way toward reducing tragedies


Secondly, the criminal punishment can be a consolation to the victims’ family. Whenever a murder happened, the most impacted people always the people love him or her most. In general, no one can easily afford the leaving of a person they love. In a case at 1984, two sibling lost both their parents,their mother Connie Johnson to murder. They lost their father, when he was condemned to death row for that murder.“Jason Johnson, 38, plans to see his father executed on May 16, “not to see him die,” he said, “just to see my family actually have some closure.”” (Burgess) In general, an equitable punishment is the best way to comfort the victim’s families. Even it couldn’t change the fact, but at least better than seeing the offenders don’t get the appropriate punishment. In many cases, the offender used extremely brutal methods to kill the victim. One example is an infamous Cho Doo-soon case that happened in 2008, South Korea. in which an 8-year-old girl, named "Na-young" in the South Korean press, was raped and beaten by a drunk 57-year-old man in a public bathroom.Cho repeatedly raped Na-young in an abandoned public church restroom, and as the child resisted, he beat, strangled and attempted to drown her in a toilet until she lost consciousness. Her parents found Na-young near death.Although The Korean government didn’t officially ban the death penalty, but since the execution of 23 death row inmates in 1997, no more executions have taken place. Ultimately, the court makes a ridiculous justice, he was sentenced to only 12 years in prison. This decision infuriated Na-young’s parents, they filed a lawsuit against the prosecution for a more equitable verdict. The lightest punishment to the most culpable offender, it would be the most desperate strike for this ordinary parent. If the government ban the death penalty due to the humanitarianism, isn’t this decision to consider only the human rights of the prisoners against the families of the victims a violation of humanitarianism?

Thirdly,The death penalty is also giving a acount to the society, to calming the community. Many abolitionists take place on rationalism, rationalism requires people to rationalize everything,suggesting people to always ponder the consequences of every action. This idea is arrogant. We should consider the moral values of the death penalty ,Banning Death penalty actually ignore the essential emotion of Human, which is that to revenge, the offenders deserves to be punished for his crime. Banning death penalty due to humanitarianism is an inhumane thought. In more serious situation, if public see the sinful offenders get appropriately punished, public’s revenge can’t be calmed,will increase the possibility of people lynching the offender. Humanitarianism finally caused an inhumane result. Base on the study above, it demonstrates that keeping the death penalty would lead to a better result to public.

In conclusion, the death penalty should not be banned. Banning death penalty would do more harm than good. Cesare, Beccaria is the first person who systemly propose the theory of abolish death penalty. He mentions in his book, “Is the death penalty really beneficial and just in a well-organized society.” Some Abolitionist mistakes that abolishing the death penalty is the symbol of a well-organized society. But each country has different situation, whether or not to abolish the death penalty should consider the condition of particular country.