In this blog post, we will consider how to reconcile the crime prevention effects of the death penalty with the value of human dignity.
I am against the death penalty. Most sex offenders and murderers commit their crimes in a state of passion or insanity. In other countries, child sex offenders are not simply considered criminals, but as mentally ill patients, and long-term treatment and correctional programs are implemented for them. In addition to congenital malignancy, social and environmental factors are major reasons for the development of such mental illnesses. The alienation, abuse, and trauma caused by crime in childhood can lead to these mental problems. Society should strive to improve such an environment from the perspective of welfare, but society is also responsible for creating such an environment. In addition, some of the sex offenders may have experienced sexual crimes as children and have reached a mentally pathological state, but society has failed to prevent such crimes.
Therefore, if we are to hold someone accountable for a heinous crime, of course, the greatest responsibility lies with the criminal, but the social environment that prevents rational thinking cannot be completely free from responsibility. However, the death penalty only places all the responsibility on the criminal.
Moreover, if many violent criminals suffer from mental illness, they can be treated through long-term treatment and correctional programs like in other countries, restoring their rational thinking and reducing the possibility of reoffending. One of the main reasons for supporting the death penalty is to permanently remove criminals from society by depriving them of their lives and eliminating the possibility of reoffending, but humans are beings with room for improvement. If a crime is committed under a pathological state, there is no need to choose extreme measures if the disease can be treated and improved. It is stated that the purpose of punishment other than the death penalty is not only to prevent the offender from reoffending, but also to rehabilitate and re-socialize him or her. However, the death penalty is a method of completely preventing the possibility of recidivism, which is not in line with the original purpose of punishment, which is rehabilitation and correction. In particular, crimes committed under pathological conditions are more likely to be rehabilitated, so it is more desirable to leave the possibility of rehabilitation and correction.
In the past, punishment was seen as retribution for crimes, but expressing anger based solely on the idea of retribution does not help the rehabilitation of criminals or the relief of victims. Punishing criminals to death based on the emotions of the time may give the victims a sense of retribution, but it has nothing to do with the victims’ relief. Therefore, it is reasonable to view punishment from the perspective of reform and rehabilitation rather than retribution, and to provide opportunities for those with a high chance of reform.
Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states that all citizens have the right to dignity and value as human beings and to pursue happiness. Since the state has the duty to confirm and guarantee the inviolable basic human rights of individuals, it cannot have the right to deprive a person of his or her life. However, the death penalty is an act that goes against this human dignity. No one can take the life of another person or treat them harshly. When a citizen is abducted during a conflict between countries, the state may even suffer great losses in order to rescue that citizen. Even when a stealth fighter jet is out of order and the pilot’s life is in danger, we do not condemn the pilot for abandoning the fighter jet to save his or her life. This is because human life is precious and dignified above all else. Human dignity is an important value that cannot be sacrificed for the sake of society, and protecting it is the purpose of the law. However, the death penalty system ignores this.
Korea is a free and democratic country that prioritizes human rights and human life and prevents them from being taken away without permission. However, the death penalty shows a demonstration that denies the absoluteness of human life by depriving the life of a criminal. This is tantamount to a state that is supposed to protect life by law encouraging a trend of disregarding life. Even if a criminal has committed a serious crime, seeing that his life is easily taken away can lead to the perception that “a vicious criminal must die.” This can undermine the perception that human life is precious, and the death penalty, which disregards human dignity, cannot be justified in depriving a criminal of his life.
In addition, the executioner also commits murder in the name of “justice” by following the orders of the state. Even if it is an order from the state, the act of killing someone to punish them can never be justified. In fact, many executioners feel remorse, and the pain of the execution can be seen in their memoirs. This can also harm innocent people.
When a crime occurs, it is up to people to decide the punishment. However, since humans are not gods, mistakes can occur in the process of determining right and wrong. There is always a possibility of a miscarriage of justice due to lack of evidence, inadequate defense, etc., and if a miscarriage of justice is discovered after the death penalty is carried out, there is no way to reverse it. As the death penalty deprives a person of their life, the situation where a person is wrongfully killed by a miscarriage of justice is an incomparable tragedy.
The death penalty is adopted in some countries because of its deterrent effect on crime. It was expected to reduce the likelihood of crime due to fear of punishment, but the deterrent effect of the death penalty has not been clearly proven by looking at the status of serious crimes in regions where the death penalty has been abolished and in regions where it has not. According to a UN survey, Canada has seen a steady decline in the murder rate since the death penalty was abolished. South Korea has not executed anyone on death row for a long time, but violent crimes such as child sex crimes have not decreased. The general deterrent effect of the death penalty is not much different from that of life imprisonment, so maintaining the death penalty does not provide much benefit.
In a society where crimes of all sizes are constantly occurring, especially when cruel crimes such as child sex crimes or serial murders occur, people may feel emotionally that the death penalty is necessary. However, logically, the need for the death penalty is not that great. South Korea is ending its dictatorship, reducing the gap between the rich and the poor through equal employment opportunities for men and women, coexistence between labor and management, and a welfare system, and achieving national harmony. In addition, as more victims are demanding the commutation of death sentences to increase respect for life, public awareness is changing. Internationally, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights emphasize the abolition of the death penalty. Considering this trend, it is time to “kill” the death penalty.
