Embedded Files
written by kohta Ono,
first-year student at the University of Tsukuba
(Permission granted for publication on September 2023)
The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has been debated for centuries. Related to this trend, some people state that the death penalty is necessary for its potential to deter future crimes, whereas others disagree with this opinion. I agree with the former for the following reasons.
To begin with, the death penalty has a deterrent effect on executions (Yang, ch. Results). This study conducts a meta-analysis, analyzing forty-one studies that showed a quantitative analysis of the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Yang states that twenty-eight effect sizes indicated a deterrent effect, and thirteen indicated a brutalization effect (Yang, ch. Results).
Next, the death penalty is necessary for justice and closure for victims’ families. They believe certain crimes are so heinous that the harshest punishment is warranted. By imposing the ultimate penalty, society condemns these acts and assures citizens of their safety. For example, over seventy percent of families of victims who died in murder cases sentenced to life imprisonment think murder should receive the death penalty (White Paper on Crime 2002).
Of course, there are concerns about the irreversible nature of the death penalty and the risk of executing innocent people. The justice system is prone to errors, biases, and wrongful convictions. Executing an innocent person not only violates their right to life but also undermines the credibility of the justice system. However, there are still no statistics based on sufficient data on the number of cases of mistrial or false conviction in trials.
Some opponents argue that implementing the death penalty is expensive and resource-intensive. Legal proceedings, appeals, and maintaining death row facilities require significant financial resources. Critics argue that these resources could be better used for crime prevention, victim support, and rehabilitation programs. Nevertheless, it is difficult to measure the cost of them. Thus, it is impossible to state that the death penalty is expensive.
Many opponents argue that the death penalty violates the fundamental human right to life. They believe the state should not have the power to take a person's life, regardless of the crime committed. However, if we allow war for self-defense, we condone state-sanctioned murder. If one accepts fight in self-defense, but not another form of state-sanctioned murder, one needs a rationale other than "the state should not have the power to take a person's life (Usami 202).
However, despite these valid concerns, I still support the implementation of the death penalty for certain heinous crimes. While addressing and minimizing the risks of wrongful convictions and ensuring a fair and just legal system is essential, the potential deterrent effect and the pursuit of justice and closure for victims' families outweigh the drawbacks.
In conclusion, the debate over the death penalty is complex and multifaceted. While acknowledging the valid arguments against it, I believe the potential deterrent effect and the quest for justice and closure should not be dismissed. Striking a balance between protecting innocent lives and ensuring justice for victims is imperative as society grapples with this contentious issue.
Works Cited:
Ministry of Justice. White Paper on Crime 2002. Ministry of Justice, 2002, https://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/44/nfm/n_44_2_5_5_2_6.html
Usami, Makoto, et al. 正義論 ―ベーシックスからフロンティアまで―. 法律文化社, 2019, https://elib-maruzen-co-jp.ezproxy.tulips.tsukuba.ac.jp/elib/html/BookDetail/Id/3000091360
Yang, Bijou, and David Lester. The deterrent effect of executions: A meta-analysis thirty years after Ehrlich. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2008, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235208000925#aep-section-id37
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse