Whether the Death Penalty is a Desirable Policy - Essay Example

? Whether the Death Penalty is A Desirable Policy Introduction An issue touching on a policy relating to death penalty brings tomind the fundamental rights and freedoms of human being (Coughlin, 2004, p.47). Usually, it creates a heated debate, throwing each side of the camps to the extreme ends, a sharp division that cannot be easily harmonized. Apparently, death penalty is a controversial debate, with both opposing camps presenting strong positions aimed at justifying their claim. Possibly, no one would like to stand on the neutral ground to advocate for both, or none. The major contention is whether death penalty is a desirable policy for the government to implement. Notably, death penalty curtails the rights to life, which the constitution guarantees (Coughlin, 2004, p.99). The human rights activists have played an aggressive role in making sure that the governments abolish all constitutional provisions and by-laws, which promote death penalty, a move that is prevalence in most parts of the world. In reality, most international studies have shown that death penalty has ceased to be the preferred method of controlling crime (Coughlin, 2004, p.47). Therefore, most governments have shifted their attention to other methods of dealing with crime, without resorting to capital punishment. For this essay, the focus is on whether the death penalty is a desirable policy, while comparing the position in the United Kingdom and in Malaysia. Notably, the 10th day of October each year is marked worldwide, as “the day against death penalty” (Piket, 2011, p.1). In essence, the day is marked with campaigns and conferences to create awareness on the need to abolish death penalty. This aims at achieving the EU’s goal of eliminating the practice in all countries worldwide. The Position of the Death Penalty in the United Kingdom According to the government’s death penalty strategy of 2010, “The United Kingdom Opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle because we believe it undermines human dignity; there is no conclusive evidence of its deterrent value; and any miscarriage of justice leading to its imposition is irreversible and irreparable” (Hammel, 2011, p.235). The statement is indeed bold and encompasses many aspects about the value of a human being. In the strategy paper, one realizes that the U.K government does not have any provision to warrant any person to terminate the life of another, under all circumstances (Hammel, 2011, p.235). Precisely, this shows the government’s commitment to eradicating any legal right to sentence an individual to death. In addition, the U.K government cites that the practice does not guarantee human dignity (Hammel, 2011, p.235). Here, it reveals something very important, that is the human dignity. Terminating one’s life is like denying him/her the fundamental right to life, which is basic to all human beings. Perhaps, the U.K government realized that man does not create life, therefore, does not have the authority to terminate it. This implies that there should be alternative means of executing punishment to offenders other than subjecting them to death (Hammel, 2011, p.236). Still considering the statement, the government noted that none has ever verified that imposing death penalty causes deterrent behavior. In fact, many studies have concluded that despite the increasing number of criminals being killed, the executions have not deterred others from joining such crimes (Hammel, 2011, p.236). Therefore, it is clear that imposing death penalty on criminals would be a deterrent to their behavior until an agreeable means of intervention, which is friendlier, is adopted. In addition, the government underscores the need to preserve life, indicating that misuse of justice, whose consequence terminates one’s life, is permanent and cannot be altered by all means (Yorke, 2009, p.207). Truly, once a criminal has been executed, he/she cannot be brought back to life. It seems as if the United Kingdom’s government considered the arguments and concluded that death penalty is inhuman and should be abolished at all cost. Ethically, one should not use a third party to help him/her execute another person and the current law in the U.K is clear on this matter. Truly, it is traumatizing to be informed of a death sentence (Yorke, 2009, p.208. One’s death should not be anticipated, it ought to be abrupt and uncertain to avoid anxieties, which comes with such knowledge. The Position of the Death Penalty in Malaysia During the EU convention held in Kuala Lumpur in October 2011, H.E. Vincent Piket who is an Ambassador and head of the delegation to Malaysia confirmed that the country still practices death penalty, in a region where most countries have abolished such laws (Piket, 2011, p.1). In the convention, the head of the EU delegation to Malaysia confirmed that in 2010 alone, 114 people were already sentenced to death, and one execution had already been reported (Piket, 2011, p.2). Moreover, about 744 people were on the row waiting for the penalty (Piket, 2011, p.2). The sad confirmation indicated that the Malaysian government had not changed its position on death sentence and was still exercising it in full effect. He also indicated that while, the public opinion was in favor of capital punishment and the country generally remained conservative, there is still enough chance and room for changing this position for the country to abolish capital punishment (Piket, 2011, p.2). Still, the government could make necessary constitutional amendments to abolish death penalty. Again in the country, the government does not seem to be determined in ending human execution, claiming that it was necessary and could deter the people from committing gross crimes (Hammel, 2011, p.235). This followed proclamation by the Deputy Minister, Datuk, M. Kayveas, whose office fall under the Prime Minister’s Department. On June 28, 2006, he told parliament that: "The Government has no intention of abolishing the death penalty” (Zuan, 2010, p. 5). He added that it was meant to deter gross crime, meaning that the serious criminals could face death penalty in the country. In the contemporary society, analysts refer to the statement as intolerable and inexcusable, especially when it comes from a senior government employee, meaning that it is a government decision (Rajah, 2006, P.iii). Besides, imposing death penalty could safeguard the people’s interest due to increase in insecurity. Notably, insecurity compromises a lot in public domain, therefore, could have an impact on the overall development of the country (Zuan, 2010, p. 5). In line with this government’s position, those who are against the death penalty and the human rights activists have exhibited open opposition the government position, arguing that it does not obey the basic right to life (Turow, 2004, p.2). In fact, it created public outcry and disappointment at they claimed were false unsubstantiated statement (Hammel, 2011, p.235). Furthermore, they claimed that studies do not have the statistics to prove that imposing death penalty could actually deter criminals from committing unlawful acts. Most people accept the application of long-term jail, for capital offences, or probably life imprisonment (Gottfried, 1997a, p.66). In fact, it would be useful for the country to conduct extensive research to determine whether imposing death penalty could deter criminals from carrying out gross violation of human rights (Hammel, 2011, p.236). Presumably, if the practice is found to be effective, the government can present the statistics, to convince the public that it is applicable. Otherwise, the government should not announce its intension to implement the policy. Really, the public has general acceptance of a physical form of punishment, including caning despite the revelation that it is dehumanizing if actually done in public (Turow, 2004, p.2). Perhaps, it would be considered immoral to whip older criminals publicly, because it lowers the person’s dignity and respect he/she has earned from other people in the society. In essence, for the public policy on death penalty to be acceptable, its arguments and provisions should be supported by statistical evidence, to show that indeed, the number criminals reduced significantly after the enactment of such law (Turow, 2004, p.3). The period over which the research has to be conducted has to be considerate to make the outcome more empirical that relying on baseless speculation. A government policy affects the country as a whole; therefore, it should offer adequate solution to the people’s problems than causing limitation and hindrance to the basic rights and freedom of the people (Hammel, 2011, p.237). When such policies are formulated from the misinformed data, then it could mislead the country and its administration, and probably cause conflict during its implementation. Sometimes, such tension destabilizes a country, thereby affecting other normal operations. It is the government’s hard position to impose death penalty on the drug trafficking and murder that they claimed were capital offences and only punishable by execution (Gottfried, 1997a, p.72). The European Union (E.U) got involved and held a big public event with an aim of pressurizing the government to abolish death penalty, and pave way for other liberal ways of punishing the serious offenders (Piket, 2011, p.3). The conference was held at the capital city of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur on Oct 13, 2011 (Piket, 2011, p.3). At the convention, the speakers reiterated that the EU is strongly opposed to death penalty based on principles (Piket, 2011, p.3). The founding treaty of the EU spells out non-tolerance to death policy. No member country implements such policy and for countries joining the EU, abolishing such practices is a pre-condition (Piket, 2011, p.4). Notably, the EU treaty respects the human rights, meaning that all practices, which infringe on this basic right of a human being, are not condoned. In practice, the EU is on a campaign trail to end death penalty around the globe. According to the EU delegation to Malaysia, they claimed that all religions, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism have joined the war against death penalty, showing that the whole world is opposed to the law (Piket, 2011, p.4). The Types of Offences which are Punishable by Death in Malaysia According to the government of Malaysia, there are certain offences that they consider gross and disrupting the normal operations of the country (Zuan, 2010, 2). Some of the serious crimes, whose offenders could face death penalty include, drug trafficking and murder (Zuan, 2010, p.2). It is not easy not easy to avoid making serious mistakes in dispensing justice. Thus, imposing death penalty on drug trafficking and murder is similar to similar to making a mistake, though in pretext of dispensing justice and this remains the truth. The government’s move to isolate drug trafficking and murder as capital offences attracting capital punishment takes the people back the Hammurabi period, when there was a strong belief of “an eye for an eye” (Piket, 2011, p.3). However, as a result of civilization, such traditional thought and practices have been abolished, in favor of the modernization trends. With modernization, the people’s knowledge and understanding have increased. Therefore, the people have realized that the Christians’ belief that, it is God who gives life and only He who could take away life (Gottfried, 1997a, p. 75). Apparently, this gives no human being the power to terminate the life of another. In another argument, it is believed that no crime is more serious than the other. In this regard, all crimes should have similar weight before the law (Turow, 2004, p.4). Furthermore, isolating crimes could increase the rate at which the people commit the offences. Indeed, they might do it in retaliation, thereby compromising the security of the country. Arguments for Death Penalty In both countries, various arguments have been put forward in support of death penalty. For example, in Malaysia, the proponents of death penalty argue that it acts as a deterrent for committing serious offences (Gottfried, 1997b, p.14). There is a general belief that when such policies are implemented, one would be afraid and possibly avoid committing crime to escape execution. In addition, there are unproven claims that abolishing death penalty increases the rate crime in a country. Therefore, for countries still upholding death penalty, there is fear that it would be the case since criminals would breathe freedom, go on the loose and intensify the criminal actions, due to mild conditions (Gottfried, 1997b, p.17). Again in Malaysia, drug use and trafficking is outlawed because of its adverse effects on society. However, despite the ban, there are a number of people who still engage in this illegal trade. As a deterrent, the government is convinced that putting tough measures would reduce the illegal trade and subsequently eliminates it. Since many people fear death, they would desist from engaging in the trade that would end them in death sentence (Gottfried, 1997b, p.36). Arguments against Death Penalty In reality, there are various arguments against death penalty, for example, Christians’ belief that, it is God who gives life and only He who could take away life (Mokhtar, 2006, p.41). Therefore, no person is allowed to end another person’s life. The Head of the EU delegation to Malaysia argued that death penalty could be replaced with other deterrent punishments, which do not terminate a person’s life, for instance, life imprisonment and hard labor (Piket, 2011, p.3). In another argument, at no circumstance does death appeals, there is a perception that since it does not appeal, there is no need to execute criminals, but consider other liberal means of carrying out punishments. Indeed, engaging in an act that would create awful memories to the family, relatives and friend of the executed person, for exclusively no benefit, should not be tolerated (Turow, 2004, p.4). Moreover, critics and analysts have claimed that studies do not have the statistics to prove that imposing death penalty could actually deter criminals from committing unlawful acts. Mokhtar claimed that despite the number of people hanged for committing offences, new cases still arise and are on the increase (Mokhtar, 2006, p.55). Therefore, there is no correlation between imposing death penalty and deterrent behavior. The implication is that there is no need for carrying out execution if actually it violates the human rights to life and would not create any significant impact. Differences between the U.K and Malaysia Miscarriage of Justice Notably, the history and practices relating to miscarriage of justice is common in Malaysia and U.K. In Malaysia, for example, the Deputy Minister touched on the miscarriage of justice citing that the country had adequate safeguards to avoid them. In his claim, he refers the country’s police fore as experienced and could deal with them (Rajah, 2006, P.iii). A critical examination of his statements shows a strong political influence than the public’s interest. For example, in Malaysia, most of the fundamental freedoms of a person are lost immediately upon an arrest. Indeed, the arrested person is not guaranteed the freedom to access his/her lawyer, make or receive a phone call and cannot be granted the pre-trial for full disclosure of the offence (Mokhtar, 2006, p.18). Therefore, one would question the Deputy Minister’s position of adequate safeguards, whether they are political or practical. Conclusively, there are no convincing safeguards and the country should adopt the modern ways of dealing with criminals than isolating crimes. In addition, the government does not provide a better explanation on the ways it intends to deal with miscarriage of justice that is widely evidenced in the country. The government also considers adopting a lesser punishment, such as caning the offenders, according to the public preference and EU recommendations of using physical punishment, as opposed to capital punishment. In the U.K, there were prevalent historical cases of miscarriage of justice, in which the access to fairness was comparatively difficult for the majority (Yorke, 2009, p.208). This persisted until the government started adopting liberal laws, which guarantee the fundamental right to life. As well, the government sticks to the notion that death penalty does not guarantee human dignity, and since respect to human dignity is among the fundamental rights and freedoms that every person is entitled to, they overwhelmingly oppose the implementation of death penalty (Yorke, 2009, p.209). The U.K government is also of the opinion that death penalty undermines the basic right to life. The people deserve to live without any form of interference, intimidation and compulsion that would result to death (Yorke, 2009, p.209). Therefore, they are totally concerned, value life and do not promote death penalty. In addition, the EU also imposed external restriction on the importation of sodium thiopental; a drug that has been widely used is execution from the UK (Yorke, 2009, p.209). Own Opinion Basically, implementing laws, which allow the execution of criminals, would be similar to committing murder that the law is against. Therefore, it is literally a challenging task to convince the criminals to avoid murdering others, if actually the law enforcers are killing the offenders. The worldwide application of justice should override the legal provisions to terminate the lives of criminals. Notably, crime is universal and causes to offend despite the magnitude, therefore isolating unlawful acts might cause relativity, where the criminals can as well complain that the crimes they have committed does not deserve capital punishment. Similarly, crime could be out of intent, while other intentional. Differentiating between the deliberate and non-intentional could difficult, especially in cases lacking sufficient evidence, or proof that the crime was actually committed by the accused. Such issues might compromise the search for justice, thereby barring the criminals from facing the law. Since the fundamental right to life is binding to all, no one has the right to terminate another person’s life. Therefore, it would be desirable for policy makers to formulate, not lenient policies, but substantially deterrent without terminating the life of criminals. Indeed, it would be better to curtail other social freedom of the criminals, other than killing them. For example, jailing them for long term, and if possible for life and subjecting the criminals to deterrent hard labor. Also, the criminals could be put on corrective facilities and given the psychological counseling and basic training on useful skills, which could enable the person to earn a living. With counseling, it might be easy to identify the source of the problem, making the solution to be relatively simple and human, than subjecting the person to death. In essence, counseling would be considered, as a way of respecting human dignity and adhering to the universal law that guarantees every person the rights to life. Conclusion In summary, it is apparent that death penalty is really a controversial issue. The decision to adopt or abolish it is therefore relative depending on the argument presented either for, or against its adoption and abolition respectively. Basically, death penalty restricts the primary freedoms and rights to life, which most constitution guarantees and other international treaties such as the ones adopted by the EU states. Often, the human rights activists have played an important and progressive effort in making sure that the governments abolish all constitutional provisions and by-laws, which promote death penalty. Precisely, the move is already prevalence in most parts of the world, because many countries are currently adopting liberal and acceptable approaches in dealing with hard-line criminals. In reality, the most international studies have shown that death penalty has ceased to be the preferred method of controlling crime. Therefore, the governments have changed their approach to other methods of dealing with crime, without resorting to capital punishment. The EU, for example has been advocating for the worldwide abolition of death penalty because of its dehumanizing nature. The Union has held various conferences in most countries to create awareness on the impacts of death penalty and advocate its termination. An example is the seminar in Malaysia to mark “the day against death penalty,” which occur on the 10th day of October each year. Despite the aggressive campaign to end death penalty, there are still arguments in support ands those against the verdict. The proponents of death penalty argue that it acts as a deterrent for committing capital offences, including drug trafficking and murder. Apparently, there is a general belief that when such policies are implemented, one would be afraid and possibly avoid committing crime to escape execution. However, the opponents have claimed that the international concluded researches do not have the data to demonstrate that imposing death penalty could essentially deter criminals from committing unlawful acts. Finally, death penalty is not a desirable policy. References Coughlin, W. J. (2004), Death Penalty. New York, NY: St. Martin's Paperbacks. Gottfried, T. (1997a), Capital Punishment the Death Penalty Debate. Springfield, NJ: Enslow Publishers Inc. Gottfried, T. (1997b), In Support of the Ultimate Sanction: A Logical Argument for the Death Penalty. Kindle eBook. Hammel, A. (2011), “Ending the death penalty: the European Experience in Global Perspective?EHRLR. 2: 235-237. Mokhtar, N. A. H. (2006), “Should Death Sentence be abolished?”3 MLJ cxl iii. Piket, V. (2011), Public event to promote the Abolition of the Death Penalty in Malaysia. Report by the European Union Delegation to Malaysia. Rajah, K.S. (2006), “The Unconstitutional Punishment”3 MLJ cxl viii Turow, S. (2004), Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty. New York, NY: Picador Publishers. Yorke, J. (2009), “The right to life and the abolition of the death penalty in the Council of Europe.”E. L. Review. 34 (2) 205-209 Zuan, C. M. (2010), “The appropriateness between the death penalty and murder offence under the Malaysian Penal Code” 5 MLJ xciv. Read More