by Armen Changelian

Created on: May 01, 2009

As more countries and more states consider the abolishment of the death penalty, the debate over capital punishment has continued to intensify. Simply put, such a form of punishment is a direct contradiction of civil rights as well as an irreverence of human life. The capital punishment system has proven to be an ineffective deterrent of homicide, and the costs of such a system to the government have shown to be several times larger than those of running a normal prison system. However, the true issue remains human rights. State-sanctioned murder is indeed cruel and unusual punishment, and the destruction of human life as a sign of respect and value of a murder victim's life is a contradiction within itself. Clearly, the continuation of the death penalty would be both ineffective and inhumane.

Although some may argue that the death penalty is most valuable as a deterrent of murder, the facts support just the opposite notion. In fact, in a 2000 study, it was shown that "the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty" ("The Death Penalty and Deterrence"). Although homicide rates throughout the country are on the decline, the murder rates of those states without capital punishment have been consistently lower than those with the death penalty. Clearly, the objective of capital punishment as a deterrent has failed. Realistically, the idea of the death penalty as a deterrent cannot hope to achieve considerable results. Many murderers are often deranged and in many cases under the influence of drugs and alcohol and would not consider the consequence of execution when contemplating murder.

It has also been shown that the cost of running a system based on capital punishment is far more expensive than simply condemning murderers to life sentences. According to a recent New Jersey report, "the state's death penalty has cost taxpayers $253 million since 1983, a figure that is a over and above the costs that would have been incurred has the state utilized a sentence of life without parole instead of death" ("Death Penalty Overview"). Such massive amounts of money could easily be used to support and address the needs of the families of murder victims. If not, there exist an abundance of other areas in need of funds that do not need to be spent on a capital punishment system. A life sentence is certainly a reasonable and sensible option in place of the death penalty, and it obviously would cost the state much less in the end.

Finally, the death penalty is a direct assault on the value of human life. Supporters of capital punishment claim that the destruction of human life is an acceptable method of respecting the life of the murder victim. This ironic and paradoxical statement is a perfect example of the absurdity of the death penalty. The destruction of human life is the destruction of human life and nothing more. This remains without even addressing the fact that there currently exists no so-called "humane" method of execution. Even lethal injection has produced episodes of excruciating pain in its victims. This hypocritical nature towards the respect and value of human life is exactly why such a system must never be imposed.

Clearly, the continuation of the death penalty would be both ineffective and inhumane. Capital punishment would not prove an effective deterrent of homicide, the costs would be too great and too wasteful of taxpayer's money, and the pure principle of the value of human life would be violated if such a system were to be imposed. Murder is murder, even if it is state-sanctioned.

Learn more about this author, Armen Changelian.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.