Should Death Penalties be Legal?

A gavel and a book on the death penalty

via iPleaders

A gavel and a book on the death penalty

Death penalties, one of, if not the most controversial topic in human history, has been debated for centuries. These debates, past, and future, have and will always revolve around one central question: Does anybody truly deserve death as a punishment for their sins? There are only two real answers: yes or no. There have been plenty of good arguments on both sides, but there’s truly no good answer no matter how someone looks at this. However, some people, mainly terrorists or serial killers who have taken many lives and ruined even more, should be punished by death. This is purely because a person who works in a group can escape any prison with enough will and time. However, no one can escape death, so executing someone is the only way to ensure that they can no longer rob others of their future. Although there have been many arguments to support abolishing death penalties, in both logic and morality, they can all be easily refuted by the arguments from the opposing side. In both ethics and logic, the benefits of death penalties far outweigh the costs.

No matter how inhumane death penalties are, they are still needed in the world to keep the general public safe and improve innocent lives. A study shows that the incarceration of one inmate costs more than $30,000 a year, which is supplied by taxpayers. It is purely unfair and unjustified for the hard-earned money of taxpayers to simply be used for the life of a murderer. Instead, the money should be used for education or health care, which actually positively affects society. Although there have been arguments that incarceration for death-row inmates is nearly triple the amount for normal criminals, decades of imprisonment are completely unnecessary. A three-year span of imprisonment before execution is more than enough time for an inmate to appeal to the death penalty annually. If this is the case, then in the general span of time, paying for the imprisonment of a death-row inmate for three years would still be cheaper than the imprisonment of a normal criminal on a life sentence.

Even if there are alternative punishments like a lifetime of solitary confinement, death would still be the more ethical punishment compared. This is actually quite similar to the question: torture or death? Most would answer death because torture is periodically experiencing excruciating and often permanent damage. The same goes for a lifetime of solitary confinement as its a life with no joy whatsoever, taking away the point of living. Because of this, opposers of the death penalty that are taking into consideration of morality are really thinking too lightly or just not enough. There are also other arguments that state that death penalties don’t actually decrease the number of crimes. However, the same can be said for life sentences. This is because death penalties and sentences all have one thing in common: they are punishments, not deterrents. Even statistically speaking, more adult civilians support the death penalty rather than oppose it.

At the end of the day, death penalties exist, are legal, and are frankly quite important to society. However, no matter how useful they are, death penalties shouldn’t be taken lightly and should only be reserved for the poisons of society. Mainly murderers that have permanently robbed victims of their future and stolen loved ones from others. Although some see death penalties as a type of revenge in the concept of “an eye for an eye,” death penalties are really more like a cure for society to eliminate the viruses and poisons that rot the world.