Is the government justified in using capital punishment - Research Paper Example

The work that follows aims at showing that the government is not justified in using capital punishment to execute justice to offenders, though at some time it is necessary. Capital punishment is not the best method of dispensing justice to offenders. This is because it denies individuals of their constitutional rights. Various countries show their opposition to capital punishment and instead support a life sentence. A recent example is one portrayed by a number of Americans at Santa Cruz who voted against death penalty for a bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, against whom the authorities issued a death penalty (Rankin 1).

The opponents, according to Russ Rankin in the Washington Times said that it is an outdated, ineffective and wasteful method of dispensing justice. In 1972, the United States suspended the use of capital punishment following a decision by the Supreme Court. This is an indication that it is not the best method of dispensing justice to offenders. Although the state re-established death penalty, its popularity and implementation is decreasing, with only a few exceptions (Rankin 4). The method, as Rankin points has not proofed to be the best method to deter crime.

On the contrary, it costs taxpayers in a state more to execute death punishment than life sentence (Rankin 5). The government is not justified to issue capital punishment because many of them may go against the rights of those convicted. For example, Lindsey Bever reporting in ‘the guardian’ talks of a 62-year old man, Graham, wrongfully sentenced to death but escapes through being shipped to a prison in California. After the US criminal justice system reinstated capital punishment since 1976, many people have lost their lives.

As Bever points, it is hard to know the exact number of people who died for crimes they did not commit. As Graham reveals, discrimination reins in the American criminal justice system where people with little crimes would face execution while others with brutal offenses would be spared. In most cases, those accused of capital punishment are poor and cannot afford to fight for their rights. This happens because the people cannot hire a lawyer for themselves unless there is a counsel provision for them and most of them fight for their rights without legal documents.

This is why there is a lot of discrimination in handling these cases given that those unable to pay for the cost fail to get justice. It makes it hard to justify government’s issuance of capital punishment as there is no justice rendered to those convicted. Most of the governments practicing capital punishments go against the rights of the individuals as provided in the constitution. Every individual, even those convicted to an offense have a right to life and it is against the constitution for the government to issue a capital punishment against them.

However, there are circumstances under which capital punishment may seem the best method to implement justice. Depending on the weight of the offense, a government or a court may choose to execute capital punishment on the offender. For example, following the Delhi gang rape several factors made the court term the rape worthy for capital punishment. First, the court argued that those who committed the offense did it in an extremely brutal and revolting manner which raised an intense and extreme annoyance to the society (Baxi 3).

The court directly links this brutal nature of the violence to the quantum of annoyance on the society.