In this blog post, we will look at the death penalty from various angles to see whether it is an effective system for deterring crime and achieving justice, or an inhuman punishment that violates human rights.
I believe the death penalty should be abolished. Today’s death penalty system has many problems. In recent years, there has been a growing public opinion that the death penalty is justified for vicious criminals due to a series of violent crimes, but I take the opposite position. Is the death penalty a reasonable punishment? I don’t think so. So, what problems does the death penalty have today?
First, the death penalty is inhuman. Currently, most developed countries, except the United States, are unconditionally opposed to the death penalty. This is because the death penalty is the ultimate form of punishment that is merciless, cruel, inhuman and degrading. As Amnesty International reminded in its 1977 Stockholm Declaration, “The execution of the death penalty is an act of violence, and violence tends to provoke more violence, and the imposition of the death penalty brutalizes all those involved in the process.” According to this declaration, all executions are perceived as cruel acts by those involved in the executions, and they undermine the value that society places on human life. For example, on December 30, 2006, former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was hanged following a trial that did not meet international standards of a fair trial. The Iraqi authorities released a video showing the moment before the execution, and additional illegally recorded footage was circulated. This footage showed the prison guard mocking Saddam Hussein and detailed scenes of the execution, which was widely condemned around the world.
The cruelty of the death penalty affects not only the condemned, but also their families, prison guards, and even the executioners. In many countries, the role of the executioner leaves a significant psychological impact. Judges, prosecutors, and other related officials also face moral dilemmas that are at odds with their beliefs during the execution process.
In addition, the method of execution itself is inhumane. US judicial authorities have been trying to change the death penalty into a humane method by implementing various methods, including hanging, shooting, gas chamber, electric chair, and lethal injection. However, there are still executions that are painful, such as the case of Angel Diaz, who was executed by lethal injection. He continued to move after the first injection, and died 34 minutes after the second injection. The autopsy revealed that the poison was injected into the soft tissue rather than the vein. Due to this problem, some states have suspended executions and are reviewing the issue. In addition to lethal injection, various methods of execution can violate the human rights of death row inmates due to mistakes or the inhumanity of the method itself.
Second, the death penalty can harm innocent people through wrongful convictions. According to Amnesty International, there have been repeated allegations of innocent people being sentenced to death in the past decade. In the United States, 349 cases of wrongful convictions have been reported, and 23 innocent people have been executed. These wrongful convictions have often been revealed through the appeals process or accidental media reports. Roy Jenkins, former British Home Secretary, concluded that “out of the 10 cases that resulted in death sentences, there were many doubts as to guilt, and because there is vulnerability in human judgment, we must be more cautious in taking final action such as the death penalty.” Innocent people should not be sacrificed by the death penalty.
Third, the death penalty can be abused by dictators or authoritarian regimes. Dictators have used the death penalty as a means of political repression in modern and contemporary Korean history as well as throughout the history of the world. There are many examples of dictators who seized power through military coups or other means of subversion using the death penalty to execute their opponents. In recent years, 14 countries have carried out political executions, using them as a means of eliminating political opponents under the guise of fair trials. Under such regimes, the death penalty is nothing more than murder under the guise of legal justification.
Proponents of the death penalty argue that it makes the condemned pay for their crimes and increases the deterrent effect. However, it is questionable whether the death penalty plays this role. In 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted the “Resolution on a Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty,” stating that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent effect of the death penalty and that it is more conducive to the protection of human rights. In the case of the state of Delaware in the United States, the number of murders increased after the death penalty was reinstated, while in Canada, which abolished the death penalty in 1976, the murder rate actually decreased by 44%. There is insufficient evidence that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on crime, and rather, strengthening the social safety net is more effective in preventing crime.
Finally, some argue that the death penalty should be supported because if death row inmates are imprisoned for life instead of being executed, the state will have to pay for their livelihoods. In fact, the cost of a death row inmate in South Korea reached about 25.5 billion won by 2012, which is said to cost about 25 million won per death row inmate. However, the logic of executing death row inmates for cost-saving reasons is an unfair approach that converts human rights into a cost issue. The maintenance of the death penalty system should be judged based on the dignity of human life, not on economic motives.
As such, the death penalty is an evil law that should be abolished worldwide. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, 139 countries have abolished the death penalty either de jure or de facto. Most countries that used to execute people have abolished the death penalty, and reintroduction is very rare. However, there are still some countries that maintain the death penalty. Even if we need to punish criminals, the death penalty is just another form of violence by the state. What is important is to expand the social safety net to prevent crime. It is preferable to strengthen social protection mechanisms rather than maintain the death penalty to protect the people.
In conclusion, the death penalty should be abolished. However, it is practically difficult to abolish the death penalty in all countries immediately. Therefore, countries that maintain the death penalty should gradually work to abolish it, while at the same time improving the current death penalty system in a more rational and humane direction.
