Flash back to 16th century BC, Egypt: An innocent nobleman was suddenly accused of magic – an offense regarded as among the most heinous crimes of the era. Alas, we know these accusations were nothing but accusations, but back then, his pleas were meaningless to the court. Thus, despite his denials, the court deemed him guilty, his punishment? – forced to take his own life. This was the first instance of the death penalty being recorded, and although gruesome, it has consistently existed across centuries into the contemporary criminal justice system, although in much less violent forms (thankfully).
As we have evolved into a more developed status quo, the institutionalization of the death penalty has become increasingly complex, spurring contentions encompassing cultural viewpoints of retribution and justice. Now, the death penalty is one of the most criticized forms of punishment with critics describing it as “the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment” and a violation of fundamental human rights to live. All the while, 55 countries including China, India, and parts of the US still condone the death penalty. To this extent, debates concerning the death penalty’s benefits and drawbacks have transpired across the past few centuries. From the 1989 Vienna Follow-up Meeting to the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, various clauses have been dedicated to both the allowance yet limitation of the death penalty on a global level. Still, disagreements arise regarding what place the death penalty holds in society.
Hence, this particular essay aims to focus on the benefits and drawbacks of utilizing the long-contended punishment as a means of societal benefit. From this discourse, we see a distinct separation between proponent and critic substantives in the following:
Primarily, advocates of the death penalty argue it aligns with utilitarian values, maximizing net happiness for society. In the context of the death penalty, utilitarianism may be explained in two manners.
1) Third-party perspectives may be observed through catharsis from an audience seeing so-called “justice”. Humans intuitively want criminals to face deserving punishments, thus, the absence of a death penalty may give rise to societal backlash if society does not deem state-sanctioned punishment fit. Of course, it’s unclear to what extent citizens care about proportionality of crime. While some argue it simply causes societal unrest, others believe it prompts vigilantism for citizens to take justice “into their own hands”. Many argue a justified death penalty prevents this civil disorder through satisfying the perceived retributive satisfaction of society.
2) Imperatively, proponents of the death penalty argue that demonstrating harsh punishments towards crime will deter future criminals including murderers or rapists. Intuitively, you are less likely to commit a crime at the risk of death. Through apprehension and fear among the public, potential future offenders are discouraged from committing the crime at all.
However, many challenge this viewpoint, questioning whether this punishment genuinely suffices as a deterrence. For one, empirical evidence characterizes data as noncredible and inconsistent. John J. Donohue, a professor at Yale Law School and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, comments on his study, “We show that with the most minor tweaking of the [research] instruments, one can get estimates ranging from 429 lives saved per execution to 86 lives lost”. From this, it is clear that aggregated conclusions suggest otherwise than deterrence, especially with improper testing methods for accurate results.
Naturally, those against the death penalty buttress claims through the aforementioned flawed evidence of the death penalty and other drawbacks through four faucets.
Firstly, in many cases, heinous crimes come from backgrounds of extreme mental illness. In the US alone, 33% of all mass killings are from those with bipolar or schizophrenia – keeping in mind these only include recorded mental illness. While this isn’t an excuse nor justification to release these communities entirely, it exposes how many with mental illness who are unable to grasp the severity of crimes in the heat of the moment are sentenced to capital punishment. In the majority of these cases, the death sentence isn’t going to solve the issue, but rather ignore the root issue of these communities. Critics therefore conclude that a death penalty will have minimal influence on those unable to stop themselves from falling into crime. Thus, the death penalty may only punish those unaware of the severity of their crime, revealing problem-solution mismatch in stopping crime.
Secondly, the fundamental pillars of a death penalty concede a limit to the right of life. That is to say a death sentence innately decreases the public’s respect for life – this is otherwise known as “brutalization”. Naturally, individuals are ever so slightly more inclined towards harsh crime including murder or abuse, as life is now seen as less-valued by courts – courts of which represent the highest “moral standing” and non-partisans framework. Alternatively, critics push for institutionalizing measures to rehabilitate members of society with mental illness.
Thirdly, those for rehabilitation alternatives also criticize the heavy costs of the death penalty which could’ve alternatively have been directed to rehabilitation. Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty loses more money in comparison to no death penalty due to legal costs, pre-trial costs, trials, and appeals insofar as death trials are fundamentally more complex in nature and hence, take longer to sort.
Fourthly, unfortunately, many severe crimes are biased against those in lower socio-economic backgrounds. In 2024, 62% of death row inmates in India did not finish secondary school with major states including Uttah Pradesh, Delhi, and Gujarat having 61%, 63.3%, and 89.5% of inmates not finishing secondary school, respectively. 76% of these inmates belong to lower social strata and religious minorities, illustrating a requirement for prominent discussions in the death penalty debate, even if there isn’t a direct explicit discrimination between the two at first.
In essence, the practical drawbacks of the death penalty lies in its inability to target root causes in tandem with its high costs. Even if deterrence is somewhat achieved, society must evaluate the sacrifice at which a few future criminals are stopped.
Note that the aforementioned substantives are limited to practical benefits and drawbacks. Beyond practical considerations, ethical arguments may still be examined through the following approach:
Primarily, advocates of the death penalty hone in on retribution and proportionality of punishment. That is to say that many heinous crimes of the same impact including homicide should follow an “eye for an eye” Ludovico-esque rule. In retributive justice, it is claimed that the more morally blameworthy an individual’s actions are deemed to be, the more severe the punishment should be to ensure proportionality. Hence, advocates of the death penalty argue it ensures individuals are held accountable for both their actions and intentions, serving true justice in court of law.
Of course, there is a clear disparity with this justification and real-applications of the death penalty. To illustrate, Singapore, one of the lowest crime rate countries, convicts those guilty of drug trafficking and firearm offences with capital punishment, even if these are arguably non-proportionate sentencing. This highlights how retribution may not be the ruling factor in the death penalty’s benefit. Simultaneously, it underlines how a general enforcement against severe crimes may still be effective.
On the other hand, there are two main ethical concerns and drawbacks argued through the following:
Firstly, those against the death penalty corroborate claims through the Blackstone Ratio, the idea that one innocent person being punished vastly outweighs many guilty people getting away. Within the context of the death penalty, one may argue that an innocent person executed would be a moral detriment and justification as to why society should abandon such punishments. As Sir William Blackstone once said, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. Although, the significance of this drawback is contingent on an individual’s designation of value to the Blackstone Ratio. If one leans towards a constant principle of no innocent lives harmed at any costs, the death penalty drawbacks severely outweigh its benefits; vice versa.
Secondly, additionally, many argue the death sentence removes liberty to life and thus, is a constitutional detriment. Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh examined the death penalty’s co-existence with India’s constitution. The defendant argued the death penalty directly hindered the ability to exercise Article 19 in the Constitution of India ranging from the right to freedom of speech, free movement, ability to practice any profession, etc. In the end, the court ruling was to continue with the death penalty for the “rarest of rare” crimes that exemplified utmost severity. However, ethical concerns continue to arise worldwide regarding the extent the right to life is underpinned in society.
So, what can we take from the following? These substantives should not be taken alone, but rather in synthesis with a state’s environment. If we consider cultural and economic contexts in combination with the extent of death penalty enforcement, both drawbacks and benefits vary significantly. Take two countries with a death penalty: While Singapore’s has one of the lowest criminal rates, India continues to skyrocket in heinous crimes (e.g. rape). This directly illustrates that even in conjunction with the death penalty, there are multi-variable contexts that impact effectiveness of policy. Thus, the death penalty’s effectiveness is contingent on how well court processes are upheld, the applicability of the death penalty by state, and pre-existing culture surrounding crime. Perhaps the death penalty does maximize welfare. Perhaps it doesn’t. Regardless of this, society must recognize the implications of ethics, costs, and cases in which those wrongfully convicted die – For this is a matter of life and death, and we shall bear witness to the unraveling of court decisions as thousands of generations have before.
By: Jayden Lee
Write and Win: Participate in Creative writing Contest & International Essay Contest and win fabulous prizes.
About the Author
