Death penalty is not the final consequence for the guilty
Once a man raped a girl, when the brother of that girl saw this, he tried to save his sister but unfortunately, he killed the rapist accidentally. When the police asked him why he killed the man, he said nothing in the court to protect his sister’s dignity. And finally he sentenced to death. Was he really guilty? What was his fault? Was it justice? The existence of death penalty creates dilemma in the society. It raises one underlying question: have we established our justice system out of a desire for retribution? We cannot rehabilitate a person by killing him or her. It is one kind of risk that we cannot take. As I consider, the arbitrary application of death penalty can never be ruled out in our legal system. Because of this alleged justification, many innocent people had executed before as they fail to prove themselves innocent. It is irreparable judicial error. From the perspective of ethics and humanity, it teaches the condemn nothing, it is irreversible denial of human rights and we can save at least one innocent person’s life if the death penalty is demolished.
People may say that death penalty is the ultimate warning against the criminals. If this capital punishment is demolished, it will increase the rate of crime in the society and if would-be criminals know undoubtedly that they will be put to death penalty, and then they will be less inclined to commit any extreme crimes. But even the guilty have a right to live. Death penalty is incompatible with human right and human dignity. It is ultimate denial of human right. No state can snatch away anyone’s life. It is totally inherent to every human being. According to Bakken (2010), he says about death penalty that ‘Amnesty International has since expanded its work on the death penalty and today is the largest of ninety-nine organizations which belong to the World Coalition against the Death Penalty’....