Capital Punishment: Killing the killer

A trial in which a man was convicted in a murder case has just entered the penalty phase. Jurors are deliberating between two sentences: life in prison without parole, or the death penalty. Which penalty do you think the convict deserves?

The Code of Hammurabi states “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, but the “Code of Death Penalty” goes a little further and demands a life for a heinous crime. Where for some, this warrants as a right decision, not all believe so. The death penalty is one topic which has had debaters going at it for years, and honestly, both sides have had their strong points.

The supporters say that it is unjust for the person who committed the crime to sit in a prison all day long, eat free food, have free healthcare and derive benefits from the taxes paid by the innocent; devoid of freedom, yes, but still awarded with the basic necessities. Also, imprisonment doesn’t guarantee a change of heart, repentance or even suffering for the crime committed, it just promises a life still left to live. There is also the risk that in case of an escape, the convict would end up free and out in the world, with a chance to endanger the lives of many more by committing the same heinous crime. If you can save five other lives by letting go of one, is it not better for society? Why give a murderer a roof over his head? Why give a murderer food to eat? Why allow a murderer to live?

The adversaries have a different opinion to share. They believe that ‘killing someone who killed someone else is immoral.’ If a criminal has killed 10 people and feels no remorse for it, what is the point in giving him a death penalty when that is exactly what we’re trying to decrease? It’s not like taking the killer’s life will undo any of his crimes, or have a positive effect on those who are harmed. A life sentence in prison is enough punishment, and would give the criminal more time to think and suffer because of his mistakes. Instead of taking away a life so easily, the psychological motive behind the crimes should be evaluated over the course of the killer’s life in prison, and a more fitting or appropriate punishment should be doled out. Also, death penalty doesn’t leave out an opportunity for correction in case of a wrongful conviction. There is no chance of bringing back the person to life; this could rob a person of his life- for something he might not have done.

In my opinion, the death penalty should be used only as an alternative; when no other form of punishment is effective or available. For situations where the convicted is for sure the culprit, and the crime has no other appropriate punishment. Better than killing off a criminal is to find out his reasons behind the crime, and check for any mental illnesses or disorders if need be. No man reserves the right to take another man’s life, and death penalty is nothing but murder.

• Tanushree Khemani