"The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder.'' Do you agree?

According to the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the death penalty, otherwise known as capital punishment, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences.

Personally, I do not agree to the statement that the death penalty is murder. I believe it is a deterrent warning to others against the consequences of crime. Inevitably, it would definitely have some significant impact on the emerging wrong-doer to pause before he proceeds when he knew he could jolly well be executed with the electric chair or breathe his last breath gradually with lethal injection, experiencing each and every moment of torment and fear as the flow of the toxic substance implodes the lungs and writhes the organs.

In Florida, Bush suspended executions following the gruesome scheduled execution of Angel Nieves Diaz on 13 December 2006, which took half an hour—more than twice as long as it was supposed to. “It seemed like Angel Nieves Diaz would never die,”wrote Associated Press reporter Ron Word, who has witnessed more than 50 executions in Florida. Angel Nieves Diaz was sentenced to death in 1986 for the murder during a robbery of bar manager Joseph Nagy in Miami in 1979. The lethal chemicals that were injected into Diaz’s arms, missed his veins and bled into the tissue instead, leaving foot long chemical burns on both arms. Far from being sedated and painlessly brought to his death, Diaz suffered for twenty-four long minutes after the chemicals were injected, grimacing and squirming, blinking his eyes and struggling to breathe. Moreover, everyone has his own free will and intention to do anything, regardless whether it is a subconscious one. On witnessing the ghastly and inhumane capital punishments, who would still commit crimes if given a choice? Even Napoleon, the early 19th century French Emperor quoted "The art of policing is, in order not to punish often, to punish severely".

Furthermore, the death penalty is not a murderous act. It is a form of respect for the society, the victim and for the criminal himself, and responsibility for his actions. If the law does not punish the incorrigible criminal, the society would be chaotic with criminals being given the freedom to do as they please. However, it is not an excuse to execute criminals based on gut feelings and sometimes, bias and vengeance. Morally permissible executions must be judged based on the reasons to justify acting on it, and the motives behind the crimes.

Conversely, the death penalty can be unjustified too. Two wrongs do not make a right. It is ironic for the law to execute the criminal just like the criminal executed his victims. Do humans have the right to stop someone, even an irredeemable criminal, from living? Sometimes, the society has to accept that perhaps rehabilitation should be favoured over death penalty as everyone deserves an opportunity to reflect upon his own actions. However, it is undesirable if the prisoner is seen as a martyr. This might encourage copycat crimes that are apparently detrimental to the society. Nonetheless, miscarriages of justice are irreversible. Perhaps, “It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one” as quoted by Voltaire, a 17th century French philosopher.

Naturally, people will condemn and retaliate against the criminal at first based on human instincts – thinking that the killers ought to pay for his actions with his own life, for harming us or our loved ones. Though this is not surprising, the society must accept that there is no obligation that lives’ of the guilty have to be taken.

In conclusion, I do not agree that the death penalty is a murder but a deterrent instead. At the very least, the death penalty makes people think twice before their unlawful acts. Ultimately, the decision lies in the public’s opinion on imposing capital punishments, whether the death penalty is either a deterrent or a murder in action.