Death penalty for specifically identified egregious crimes - Essay Example

Death penalty for specifically identified egregious crimes One of the issues that continue to assume a controversial stance is capital punishment. One’s personal perspectives are affected in terms of viewing the right of the state to impose death penalty for specifically identified egregious crimes. One is out rightly opposed to capital punishment; but apparently, some states in America continue to uphold capital punishment, which grossly disturb social conscience and is seen to be ethical, morally, and legally unjustified.

In a recent featured editorial article in The New York Times, entitled “America’s Retreat From the Death Penalty”, it was revealed that more criminal justice practitioners and scholars have expressed increasing opposing arguments in terms of the effectiveness of capital punishment in servicing the paramount purpose for its imposition: deterrence and retribution. As emphasized, “a distinguished committee of scholars convened by the National Research Council found that there is no useful evidence to determine if the death penalty deters serious crimes” (America’s Retreat From the Death Penalty par. 2). The result was an apparent decline in the number of executions, from a high of 98 executions in 1999 up to only 43 executions in 2012 (Facts About Death Penalty).

There are still a reported number of 33 states which were noted to concur on capital punishment; and only 17 were identified as non-death penalty states (Facts About Death Penalty). At the rate that the number of executions have apparently been manifested to be on a declining trend, only confirms that the national consensus against its continued implementation has been openly relayed. One strongly believes that capital punishment is not the most effective means for crime deterrence; since it only perpetuates a system of revenge through taking the life of the perpetuator.

The preservation of life has been regarded as paramount to human values and beliefs and thus, killing and taking another person’s life, to replace one that was unjustly lost, does not justify the wrong that has been done. Most especially, for crimes that were tried and resulted to erroneous convictions, where the wrong person could have been sentenced to death; an imposition of the death penalty could execute an innocent man – and no amount of retribution could bring back the life of a man who was wrongfully convicted.

The article likewise emphasized that “the large number of states no longer carrying out executions indicates a kind of national consensus. It points to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” an idea that the Supreme Court has evoked in judging the constitutionality of punishments” (America’s Retreat From the Death Penalty par. 10). As part of this society, one has always believed that a mistake could not be corrected with another mistake. Likewise, most criminal acts were found to have been committed in isolated instances of surges of emotions, anger, fits of jealousy, or tinges of mental disarray, where society could address the root causes and provide opportunities for more effective means for retribution.

It was disclosed that “life imprisonment is a far more practical form of retribution, because the death penalty process is too expensive, too time-consuming and unfairly applied” (America’s Retreat From the Death Penalty par. 3). Overall, given that national consensus have already indicated preferences of the abolition of capital punishment, scholars and practitioners of the criminal justice system must stand firm on convincing others that capital punishment should be ultimately stopped.

Since an individual should always be cognizant of his rights, no one must be given the right to take another person’s life in whatever situation or circumstance that person is faced with.Works Cited"America’s Retreat From the Death Penalty." 1 January 2013. The New York Times. 2 April 2013 ."Facts About Death Penalty." 2013. Death Penalty Information Center. 2 March 2013 .