Is the Death Penalty Ethical?

The death penalty is similarly to the capital punishment, which is a lawful procedure that addresses the sentence of a person who is to die for committing crime. The legal verdict that addresses the fact that a particular person will be punished to die through the death sentence. At the same time, the fact of putting into practice the death sentence is an execution. The prosecutors refer the crimes that lead to the death penalty as capital crimes (Streib, 2000).

In the past, most communities used the death penalty as a practice to make the criminals pay for their misconducts based on the political or religious conceptions. Historically, the execution of the death penalty related to the torture of the criminals. In fact, such death executions were mostly public. Today, around sixty nations practice the death penalty (Sunstein, & Vermeule, 2005).

In contrast, over a hundred countries have eliminated the capital punishment for all types of crimes. Out of a hundred countries, seven of them have stopped the death penalty only for the ordinary crimes. However, they maintain the capital punishment in special circumstances, for example, the crimes committed concerning the war, espionage or treason. It should be noted that around 40 countries have abolished the death penalty in terms of not using it for over ten years. However, about ninety percent of those countries that still use the death penalty today are concentrated in Asia (Date, 2000).

In fact, since 2009, the number of countries has prohibited the execution of the death penalty for the individuals who commit crimes under the age of eighteen years old. However, there have still been cases of the death penalties in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Iran since 2009. Overall, the legal institutions and international law prohibit the death penalty across ninety percent of the planet. For example, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the United Nations General Assembly are the major legal institutions that protect people from the death penalty all over the world (Robinson, 2011).

There are some more statistics for the capital punishment that should be revealed to the public. For example, in 2005, over five thousand people were sentenced to the death penalty in fifty-three countries around the world. In fact, almost 95% of death penalty executions have occurred in the United States, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China. Another example indicates that almost two thousand people have been sentenced to the death penalty in China since 2010. However, this number could be higher as it is only the allowed statistics. Finally, more than twenty thousand people are waiting for the death penalty execution today. Thus, this is a significant aspect to consider when taking into account whether the death penalty is ethical or not for the global population (Donohue, & Wolfers, 2005).

Based on the global legal statistics, the death penalty is not ethical for various reasons. Some people consider it as justice; others believe that despite the fact of crime, people are not in favor of taking the life of another person. For example, the perceptions of the Christians address their faith. On the one hand, they consider that the capital punishment is a mechanism of a past society. On the other hand, the Christians believe that the power of living or dying is not in the hands of people, but the Holy Lord (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000b).

The stakeholders involved in the death penalty are the lawyers, prosecutors, taxpayers, communities, religious groups, and politicians. Therefore, the best way for the stakeholders to behave with the criminals of all kinds is to save their lives, but sentence them to prison. This is important since they will still be punished for their crimes, but they will live. In some cases, the former prisoners have recognized the true meaning of the crimes and change personally. They strive to become better people when they are in prison and after they leave it (MacLean, & French, 2013).

Supporting Research


The supporting studies on the death penalty are conducted in a variety of directions. One of them is called the retribution, which refers to the punishment of a particular person since he or she is considered guilty. However, retribution refers to only those crimes for which people should be punished, depending on the seriousness of the committed crimes. The so-called true justice makes people suffer for the committed crimes (Mandery, 2005).

Simultaneously, the criminals have to suffer in the same way as they have made suffer the other people while committing crime. It is believed that the criminals should receive whatever they deserve for committing the wrongdoing. For example, in case of a murder, the criminals deserve the death penalty (Katz, Levitt, & Shustorovich, 2003).

Alternatively, the court should measure the level of punishment based on the evil of the crime. In this case, the behavior of the criminals is pursued as evidence at which the criminals are unprotected in the state of the victim. Therefore, the communities provoke the way that makes the courts respond to the crimes with the justice that is demanded by people and obliges the courts to execute an applicable penalty (American Bar Association, 2000).

The society demands the courts to execute the punishment in favor of a crime. It is intended that the criminals will recognize their wrongdoing and would be ready for the justice to take place afterwards. In fact, many people consider that such a situation ideally fits the inherited vision of justice in the contemporary world. The prosecutors often recollect the proverb that supports the execution of the death penalty and other measures of punishment. The purpose of such a support reflects the argument on the “an eye for an eye” (Hale, 1997).

However, this notion has a dual interpretation that demonstrates a total misinterpretation of the Old Testament and the meaning of its phrases. In fact, based on the proper interpretation of the Old Testament and the meaning of its phrases, “an eye for an eye” could be explained as a punishment of only guilty people. However, such a kind of punishment should be neither too compassionate nor too simple (Gawande et al, 2008).

Hence, some people have arguments against the retribution. They consider that the death penalty or capital punishment is the revenge and not only the retribution. This concept reflects the perception of people who have different moral and ethical principles. Therefore, the deterrent torment of the criminals is that some people could still be put to the sentence of the death penalty (American Psychological Association, 2002).

However, the sentence will be active, but will not be executed for many years. These people believe that in such a way, the criminals who are put to the death sentence will have a rather severe punishment that makes them realize their seriousness of the committed crime. As a result, it is more challenging, but at the same time, it is more effective compared to the death penalty. Nevertheless, such perceptions towards the death penalty are not true for everyone, especially for the people working in the national courts (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006).

For this reason, the death sentence is executed in a couple of days after the punishment has been considered. Therefore, some people argue about the fairness of such measures and prefer to claim against the retribution as a concept of punishment. However, this is not successful despite the strictness of the procedures and the fairness in the preparation (Posner, 2006).


Another concern is the deterrence, which addresses the fact of executing a death penalty mostly in cases that relate to committing a similar crime. In this case, the courts sentence the criminals to the death penalty that refers to such murders and justifies the sentence as an argument for killing innocent people (Dezhbakhsh, Rubin, & Shepherd, 2003).

There are different arguments against deterrence that the criminals anticipate when committing their crimes. Such arguments address the following aspects. According to the statistical observations, there is no true evidence it works. However, it is difficult to ensure that deterrence does not work. Some people who were not deterred have been not capable of executing the death sentence for the reason of their mental illness (Kronenwetter, 2001).

It is considered that in some cases, the crimes are committed in a state of emotional upsurge that they cannot think of the possible negative consequences. However, in such cases, the perpetrators do not ruin the material objects, which means they can control their temper and subsequent emotions. Finally, it is difficult to deter the true evidence and / or appropriate justification regarding the difference between the death penalty and the life imprisonment (Gaie, 2004).

Deterrence is considered the most effective in case the execution of the punishment with the death penalty takes place shortly after the crime has been committed. It is based on the psychological perceptions of people, in particular, the other criminals who either commit crimes or plan any wrongdoing to happen. This is analogous to the reflections of the human body. For example, once the fire injures a person, he or she will be more cautious the next time since the body has a memory of the negative consequence, such as an instant pain (Ehrlich, 2005).

Consequently, it is tested that in case more time passes before the punishment takes place, the less it is effective as a deterrent. It should be stressed that there is one more issue with the argument on the deterrence. In particular, the fact of public executions of the capital punishment, including the death penalty, serves as a better deterrent. The executions of the punishments are more effective in this way since they develop a feeling of horror that frightens the potential criminals. It makes even more sense in case the sentence is shown in public, especially if it is painful and / or humiliating for the person who committed crime (Amnesty International, 2000).

Today, the death penalty is administrated as a painless process that is followed by a variety of punishment executions. For example, in order to make the punishment less painful, it is considered to use the injections of drugs. However, in this case, such a punishment of the criminals is less effective from the position of a deterrent. The contemporary studies on the execution of the death penalty are mostly confusing and / or contradictory in a number of ways (Department of Health, 2005).

The advocates of the capital punishment claim that the death penalty is still effective in decreasing the number of crimes, even though it does not bring a great deterrent effect. For example, in case the death penalty is executed towards the murderers, they do not learn anything. As a result, such an execution of the capital punishment is not effective and lacks a deterrent effect (Johnson, & Zimring, 2009).

However, it would still have a slight deterrent effect for the potential criminals and could serve as a reason to stop them before it is not too late. The disadvantage of executing the death penalty is that there could be people who are in truth innocent and could not to prove their innocence. This is what the courts find risky regarding the use of the death penalty. In case the sentence has been put into action, proving the innocence of a person does not make sense (Hanna, 2000).


It is believed that the capital punishment, including the death penalty, does not rehabilitate a criminal. However, there were numerous cases when the convicted people had been put in prison for some time before the death penalty execution took place. Such actions do not rehabilitate the person and cannot return him/her to the society, but it can help the criminal to feel remorse and repent before the death penalty (Bassham, 1991).

In fact, there are thousands of such cases when the people condemned to the death penalty experienced rehabilitation from the position of repentance and spiritual awakening. From the position of religion, by accepting the punishment in the form of the death penalty, a criminal can recompense for the committed evil and escape such a punishment in the future life. However, it does not make sense to accept the argument about the death penalty, but it proves that the execution of the death penalty has a great number of cases when it has led the criminals to a sort of rehabilitation (Haney, & Logan, 1994).

Avoidance of Re-offending

It is obvious that the criminals who are sentenced to the death penalty will never commit other crimes. However, the vast majority of experts in the death penalty and overall capital punishment claim that the execution of the death penalty does not have sufficient justification. It implies that it is not enough to allow another person to take away the human life. Alternatively, there are different ways to be confident that such crimes will never take place again. For example, there is a possibility to sentence a person for the life imprisonment (Fears, 2007).

However, it is important to exclude any possibilities of liberation. In fact, there were cases when people escaped from prisons and committed the same crimes again. This means that the life imprisonment does not entirely solve the problem of protecting the society from such criminals. Such cases are rare, but still, they take place. As a result, it is difficult to trace the evil that such people may bring to the contemporary society. Therefore, many people do not believe that the life imprisonment with no possibility for parole can serve as a solid means of protection (Amnesty International, 2008).

Hence, it is not considered effective as these criminals can still cause harm and commit crimes to the public. At the same time, the life imprisonment of such criminals puts the employees of prisons and other inmates in danger. It should be stressed that not all the people are trained accordingly to protect the convicts with a much more criminal experience. Consequently, the execution of the death penalty is one of the best alternatives among the capital punishment that can solve this problem once and for always (Gawande, 2006).

Closure and Vindication

There are many arguments about the death penalty. It is important to know whether it guarantees the closure for the victims’ families. In fact, this argument is rather weak as different people react differently. For example, many families do not consider that the death of people can provide any closure. Hence, such an argument cannot serve as a justification for the capital punishment and death penalty as a whole (Allen, & Shavell, 2005).

At the same time, there are different criminals who are caught by the police and are convicted to the death penalty. After the criminals have been caught, they do realize the seriousness of the crime. They also understand that the punishment for committing crime, such as murder, will be a death penalty, which is rather severe. However, it will not make the killed person alive. Unfortunately, it turns out that the murderer has killed a beloved person who loved his / her family (Alvarez, 2006).

The overall feelings of the family begin with the execution of the death penalty, as this is what has been committed to their family member. In this case, the death penalty will not stop the series of murders all over the world, but it will create an opportunity for the other criminals to avoid committing crime. It is proven that the death penalty does not prevent the fact of crimes, but its execution puts criminals in the state of fear (Babbie, 2007).

The people whose friends and / or relatives have been killed are most likely to feel the relief after the murder has been sentenced to the death penalty. At the same time, the case that the murder is still alive makes no sense for the family who has lost a beloved person. It also does not bring any relief to the pain of losing a beloved person. In such cases, the overall system of justice has the purpose to grant equal form of justice. In other words, what if the victim survives, but the criminal has already been sentenced to the death penalty (Charles, & Yale, 2004).

Willingness to Help the Police

At times, the so-called “plea bargaining” is an opportunity for the criminals to minimize the punishment in the vast majority of countries. In other words, by helping the police, the criminals can have an option of reducing their sentence by providing relevant information that helps the police to prevent further crimes. In case the criminals are sentenced to the death penalty, they have a huge incentive to help the police officers. In this case, it serves as an opportunity to reduce the sentence (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000a).

For instance, the death penalty could be changed to the life imprisonment that does not overlook the possibility of parole. This makes even more sense for the prisoner to argue the punishment in case he or she has helped the police. Nevertheless, it is a rather delicate justification to avoid the death penalty or any similar form of the capital punishment. It is usually referred to as a similar argument that justifies a torture as a beneficial tool to help the police (McCafferty, 2010).

A Japanese Argument

A so-called “Japanese argument” is a rather eccentric argument that does not regularly make known. It should be stressed that Japan utilizes the death penalty very carefully. For example, it tends to execute not more than three to five people during one year. At times, the Japanese argument serves as a justification for executing the death penalty or similar capital punishment for various reasons. The Japanese psychologists believe that the Japanese argument has a great potential as a psychological effect on the prisoners (Woolf, 2004).

It could be addressed to the people who live under pressure all the time and regularly experience stress in the workplace and at home. According to the Japanese argument, the death penalty strengthens the conviction that any crimes happen to those people who truly deserve it. Hence, it leads to an opposing conviction; in particular, the crimes do not occur in the lives of people who live their lives based on the principles of “the good”. Therefore, the execution of the death penalty and capital punishment as a whole offers a psychological relief from traditional values and overloaded being (Banner, 2002).

Consequently, it reinforces the confidence that people will have merely those things that they commit every day during their living. It is also strange that the Japanese argument is supported by the public opinion across Japan. Based on the statistical observations, the people who support the Japanese argument comprise more than 80% of the Japanese population. Nevertheless, 20% of people in Japan support another movement that is rather enthusiastic about the death penalties (Kronenwetter, 2001).

In fact, the Japanese people are rather ethical about their perceptions of the death punishment. Therefore, it becomes clearer that the Japanese argument can help the criminals to rehabilitate based on the execution of the death penalty. At the same time, it is significant to address the beliefs of the Japanese people regarding the daily actions that bring either good or bad things into the life of the ordinary people (Simon, 2007).

It is high time to think about generating value for the lives of close people and bring more happiness to the souls of the Japanese people and their families. Based on the beliefs of the Japanese psychologists, this will also help reduce the level of crime, as well as will help criminals to rehabilitate during the life imprisonment (Steiker, 2005).

The Ultimate Warning

Any kind of warning is a working scheme that is used in a variety of ways. The same is with the death penalty. The fact that in case the potential criminals knew they would be put to the death sentence, they could have never committed the crime of any kind. It is especially interesting in terms of not committing crime with the premeditation (Tempest, 2005).

The same rule applies to the criminals who are in the position to commit a murder. It turns out that in case they knew, they would be sentenced to the death penalty or similar form of a capital punishment, they would not have committed it (Williams, 2012).

Nevertheless, the murders still happen rather often, which means that some groups of criminals disregard the warning of the death penalty. However, it is still the fact that a great number of criminals who are on the age of committing crime ,such as a murder, eventually consider that they do not wish to share the life of a possible victim. In general, the death penalty has proven to serve as the most effective capital punishment that has a positive influence on the criminals and their inclination to commit crime. At the same time, this special force could be implemented against the vast majority of crimes (Svendsen, 2005).

It is worth noting that the criminals could recognize that the system of justice will not stop sentencing a person to the death penalty. In this case, the overall capital punishment and the death penalty in particular have a certain effect on the potential criminals and their readiness to commit crime. Therefore, the potential criminals are inclined not to break the law and do not commit crime in the first place. This could happen because the prisoners are afraid of the death penalty. Consequently, they will think twice before committing crime (Marzilli, 2008).

The Degree of Cruelty for the Death Penalty

It is correct that the death penalty should not be cruel, especially if the legal institutions execute it. Therefore, it should be tolerated from the position of the government. In fact, there are different ways of killing a criminal who is sentenced to the death penalty. However, it is ethical to execute the death penalty efficiently. Hence, the condemned prisoners should be killed in a way before they can feel pain, which is ethical. There are different ways of executing the death penalty such as the following:

· For example, it is possible to use the lethal injection with a drug that kills almost instantly. The purpose is to kill the person before he or she becomes dying because of pain. Simultaneously, it is not possible to ask the victims about whether they feel pain or not. Nevertheless, it is ethical to execute the death penalty in a way that is not painful.

· At the same time, when the criminals are sentenced to death on the electric chair, they are fastened to the chair and have no possibility to move. They are also strapped tightly around the head using a bare metal flush against the clean-shaven and wet skin. Such a procedure allows the electricity to affect the brain. In this case, the brain stops working rather rapidly before a criminal starts feeling the pain.

· Another way of executing the death penalty is through the hanging. It kills a criminal by breaking his/ her neck. It is executed in the way that the rope is placed around the second vertebra. As a result, it stops the ability of the brain to communicate with the human body almost immediately. The next element is the termination of the heart. After the brain is dead, the heart stops beating within a couple of seconds.

· The firing squad is another way of executing the death penalty. Based on the lawful regulations, it is required to have five people shooting at the heart of the criminal. As a result, it kills a person almost at once. In particular, the heart stops beating almost instantaneously, which turns off the brain and the person becomes unconscious within a number of seconds.

· The other way to put the death penalty sentence into actions is by using a gas chamber. In fact, it is not used now since it causes more pain to the condemned, who is also a human. The gas that is used in the gas chambers is hydrogen cyanide. It kills a person by terminating the mitochondrial inhalation in every cell of the body. Consequently, it stops the work of the heart and brain very quickly as it requires the criminal to breathe in deeply. As a result, such an execution of the death penalty is not considered to be acceptable by the legal institutions (Becker, 2006).

The Death Penalty is Similar to a Murder

The system of justice that is mostly accepted around the world tends to punish a criminal based on the seriousness of the committed crime. For example, the crimes that are mostly severe lead to an imprisonment. The more serious the crime is, the more severe the punishment is. In case the crime is committed with the cruel intentions, the criminal receives an imprisonment for more years (Sunstein, & Vermeule, 2005).

If the crime is severe but not lethal, the criminal deserves the temporary imprisonment. If the crime is not lethal but violent toward a victim, the criminal deserves the life imprisonment. In case the violence of the committed crime is significant, the condemned criminal deserves the lifelong imprisonment without parole (Streib, 2000).

Therefore, overall force of the punishment is not usually equal to the seriousness of the committed crime. For example, in case the potential criminal is about to kill the victim and considers the consequences of the wrongdoing, he or she could reconsider the personal actions and could not allow a crime to happen. Therefore, such a fact has a great impact on the willingness of the potential criminal to continue committing a planned crime. Instead, the criminal could save the life of a victim, even though he/she has already been attacked (Robinson, 2011).

Since a murderer takes away the life of a victim, the system of justice should execute the death penalty in the same way to be fair. The court will have to execute the death penalty using the same ways of killing a person. However, even though it is ethically incorrect to deprive a person of a life in the same way, the system of justice is not authorized to punish the criminal at a greater extent (Date, 2000).

Therefore, in case the legal institutions forbid executing the death penalty with respect to the nature of the crime, the system of justice tends not to punish the criminal according to the seriousness of the crime. Hence, this is a dilemma; it turns out that by being ethical to the criminals, the system of justice does not execute the justice accordingly. However, some people believe it should be committed based on the seriousness of the already committed crime. It will ensure that the justice takes place irrespective of the seriousness of the committed crime (Donohue, & Wolfers, 2005).

Opposing Research

There are different perceptions regarding the law ethics; some of them are positive, and the other ones are negative. The idea is to understand whether the death penalty is ethical or not. This part of the research reveals the opposing research concerning the execution of the death penalty. It is also important to address the aspect of ethics from the position of the victim and the criminal. Thus, understanding both perceptions of ethics allows considering whether the death penalty is ethical compared to any other capital punishment (Mandery, 2005).

A Life of a Human and Its Value

It is obvious for all the people on the planet that the life of every person is a great value. According to the beliefs of the vast majority of people, the death penalty cannot ensure social justice. It is believed that any punishment that takes away the life of another person does not correspond to the worst crimes of the most sophisticated murderers no matter how cruelly they have deprived other people of their lives (MacLean, & French, 2013).

Any human life, including the life of a murderer, is valuable, which means that even the murderers who committed cruel crimes could not be deprived of this value. However, there are different perceptions concerning the value of th human life. In particular, some people believe that the human life should not be taken away, even from the criminal, unless there is a good reason in favor of such actions. In case of the death penalty, the institution of justice should have clear arguments that defeat the reasons for such a capital punishment (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000b).

The Right to Live

Every person on the Earth has an unchallengeable right to live as a human being. In this case, even the legal institutions that sentence the murderers to the death penalty violate this right. However, based on the counter-arguments, the criminals, such as murderers and others who comment violent wrongdoings, do not have any right to take away the life of other people. Therefore, in case the criminals commit such crimes, they violate the right of a human to live. Subsequently, they lose the right to live for themselves (Donohue, & Wolfers, 2005).

However, some exceptions should be taken into considerations. For example, people can lose the right to live in case they attack other people with the purpose to kill. In this situation, the only way out for a particular victim is to save his / her own life by killing the attacker. In this case, the attacker loses the right to live and the victim does not, even though a person committed such a crime. It is assumed as a murder with the purpose of self-defense (Robinson, 2011).

Based on the social justice, if people are dangerous to the community they live in and they destabilize it with some crime, the only treatment in this case is to execute the capital punishment as a way to defend the common good. In this case, the execution of the death penalty could be considered to be towards a beast but not a human being, as the life of such a criminal is more harmful to the lives of other people than his/ her living. The following act of executing the death penalty serves as a good act of repairing the violation of justice that has been committed by the murderer. Subsequently, by committing such a serious crime, the murderers forfeit their right to live as a human being (Katz, Levitt, & Shustorovich, 2003).

Executing Innocent People

The most public and convincing argument against the death penalty is that sooner or later innocent people are executed with the capital punishment. This takes place due to the mistakes in the system of justice and human factors. Such global mistakes of killing an innocent person consist of minor mistakes of the prosecutors, the overall system of social justice, jurors and other parties involved into the executing process. Therefore, innocent people will be inevitably executed as criminals without committing the actual crime (Hale, 1997).

However, the capital punishment relates to the aspects of life that should be deprived of such mistakes, as this is the life of a human being. Meanwhile, in some cases, the death penalty is a legitimate way of executing the death penalty and supporting violence towards the innocent victims. Such a situation gets worse due to the imperfect system of human justice that remains without changes and cannot eliminate the execution of innocent people with the death penalty (Gawande et al, 2008).

For example, based on the data from the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1973 over 150 people were considered innocent after 15 years. Only 5% of people that were sentenced to the life imprisonment with no parole were released. This situation became worse after the claims of the United States Supreme Court towards the execution of the death penalty with a noteworthy evidence of innocence would be deliberated as unconstitutional (American Bar Association, 2000).

However, the vast majority of the United States lawyers consider that in practice, the Supreme Court would not allow the death penalty to take place in the case there is no persuasive evidence that claim the actual innocence of the suspect. Meanwhile, the situation of the innocent victims of the death penalty is horrible as they do not have many options for a survival unless they manage to provide some sufficient evidence of their innocence (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006).

Retribution is Unethical and Executed in the Wrong Way

The majority of people consider that the retribution is ethically inconsistent and unreliable in terms of applying it in the actual practice. It means that the system of social justice cannot state that a murder is a wrongdoing by killing a murderer. It does not mean that the murderer does not deserve it, but the overall approach to the social justice is incorrect by its way of executing the death penalty. In fact, many people who are engaged in the social justice system claim that taking the life away from a criminal after another life has been lost is revenge and not the justice of any kind (Dezhbakhsh, Rubin, & Shepherd, 2003).


The major argument is that the retribution is unethical, but simply a sanitary way of revenge of vengeance. It is supported with the number of cases when the prisoners who committed a crime and were sentenced to the capital punishment or the life imprisonment illustrate many instances when other criminals in prisons attached them as a form of revenge. In other words, the criminals who have been accused of a murder do not usually change in prison. Instead, many of them become more aggressive and experience a feeling of revenge towards the other prisoners. As a result, such a behavior of these criminals often leads to the execution of the capital punishment, in particular the death penalty, depending on the seriousness of the committed crime (Posner, 2006).

Consequently, the retribution is a way to re-establish the system of social justice in a way to distinguish the vengeance of any kind. However, at times, the vengeance is an accepted form of justification for the punishment of a criminal. Nevertheless, some prisons strive to re-establish such a form of vengeance by allowing the criminals to experience the sense of resentment or revenge and contemplating on them. The purpose is to reform the constitution of mind that perceives the criminalized ways of expressing vengeance (Kronenwetter, 2001).

Retribution versus Execution of Innocent People

The fact of executing innocent people becomes a real issue since this is a valid argument concerning the problem of retribution. In case there is a serious risk of executing innocent people, the major principle of retribution that should be considered is that people get what they deserve. However, due to the mistakes in the contemporary system of justice, many countries around the world violate the execution of the capital punishment, including the death penalty, based on the above-mentioned mistakes in the system of social justice (Ehrlich, 2005).

The Death Penalty and Its Uniqueness

Many arguments regarding the retribution are connected with the death penalty as a punishment for the committed crimes. Regularly, the criminals who do not show either violence or cruelty are not sentenced with the death penalty. It is reinforced with the confidence that the death penalty that relates to the retribution is unfair towards the criminals. It is defensible by the various facts about the suffering convicts before their death penalty execution actually occurs. Therefore, by such, a suffering of the criminals outweighs their crimes, as well as the suffering of the victims (Gaie, 2004).

It is also argued that the death penalty brings a greater punishment by suffering from the execution of the death sentence and the time waiting for it. In this case, it is the incongruity of the crime and its execution towards the criminal. For instance, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, the average time of waiting for the death penalty is around ten years. This is unique since it grants the opportunity for the criminal to rethink the committed crimes and rehabilitate (Amnesty International, 2000).

Another example of uniqueness that the death penalty brings to the life of prisoners is the opportunity to wait and never know the date of execution. This practice is used mostly in Japan and allows the criminals to approach their life differently with the maximum input and value of every day. In this case, the offenders are informed about the execution of the death penalty a day before it is about to take place. As a result, most criminals strive to live every single day as if it were the last day of their life (Department of Health, 2005).

The Death Penalty and Retribution

Many legal representatives argue that the death penalty or any kind of the capital punishment is not considered as vengeance for a murder or its alternatives. The following argument is based on the fact that only the minority of death penalties are executed. This means that the capital punishment, including the death penalty, is consistent with the retribution program recommended by the legal institutions (Johnson, & Zimring, 2009).

Consequently, the death penalty is not observed with a retributive approach that can help criminals to rehabilitate. Thus, it is not supposed to be implemented as a way to execute the social justice. It is also believed to be ineffective as a capital punishment. However, such an argument is senseless for the legal authorities all over the world that still execute the death penalty if a murder has occurred (Bassham, 1991).

Therefore, the death penalty or the overall capital punishment could not be considered as a retribution tool that is effectively applied towards the criminals. However, the people who are favorable towards the retribution are the death penalty, as it does not guarantee a sufficient retribution. They also claim that the life imprisonment that does not have a parole causes significantly more suffering to the criminal compared to the straightforward death sentence after the short-term imprisonment. In addition, the cases that relate to the planning of a suicide guarantee no possibility of a retribution compared to the life imprisonment (Haney, & Logan, 1994).


The death penalty is not that effective to discourage people from committing severe crimes that are violent towards the victims. Alternatively, the probability of being caught by the legal institutions and punished for the committed crime has a greater level of deterrence. Based on the findings of the social scientists, the death penalty does not prove to have a positive effect on the criminals and potential offenders (Fears, 2007).

For example, in 1988, the United Nations conducted a survey striving to determine whether there is a correlation between the killing rates and the execution of the death penalty. According to the findings, the survey failed to offer scientific evidence that the execution of the death penalty has a greater effect of deterrence compared to the life imprisonment. It is also indicated that such a proof is improbable to be found in the future.

It should be noted that there is evidence that still shows no positive effect of executing the death penalty towards the criminals in any possible way. As a result, the scientists do not support the hypothesis concerning the deterrence effect of executing the death penalty today and in the future (Hanna, 2000).

The other survey addresses the opposite findings that have a positive claim about the deterrence effect. In particular, the scientists believe that the increase in the conviction and arrest of the criminals with a following punishment of the life imprisonment has more chances to reveal a true deterrence effect. However, some legal authorities still think that the death penalty could be perceived as a severe punishment, but it has no positive deterrence effect towards committing crimes (Amnesty International, 2008).

The scientists also claim that it is difficult to examine the deterrence effect of the death penalty as a punishment. This is justified by the inability of the legal institutions to implement the changes in the system of justice that would allow changing the approach to punishment of crimes. Based on the findings of the scientists, it is believed that they need to know the number of murders that would have been committed in a specific state in case its laws and regulation were different in a particular period of time (Allen, & Shavell, 2005).

At the same time, some legal institutions consider a deterrence effect to be an unethical and imperfect concept. The scientists consider that in case the death penalty had a deterrence effect, still it would be impossible to predict the number of potential crimes. Simultaneously, the legal authorities argue considering the punishment of innocent people would also have a deterrence effect on the society. Alternatively, this is considered untrue, as the results would be opposite to what the scientists anticipate happening (Fears, 2007).

Therefore, it is essential to establish an effective legal process that would provide certain evidence of sentencing people to the death penalty and convincing the public with the positive effect of punishing people if they deserve such a cruel capital punishment. Hence, according to the findings of the scientists, sometimes both prosecutors and defenders base their arguments on the fictional evidence. For example, the confessions of the criminals can be retrieved by torturing them. On the one hand, it is not ethical, and on the other hand, such a system of justice uses insufficient arguments to apply the death penalty (Gawande, 2006).

Brutality of the Society

According to the statistics records, the death penalty often results in a brutalization of society. Consequently, it increases the number of murders committed all over the world in a regular basis. Based on the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the Death Penalty Information Center, in the states where the death penalty is allowed, the rating of crimes increases progressively (Alvarez, 2006).

For example, in 2010, the number of murders in the states that abolished the death was around 4% for every hundred thousand people. In contrast, the states that still use the death penalty as a punishment measure towards the criminals, the statistics indicate 5% for every hundred thousand people. This means that the utilization of the death penalty has a negative effect on the rate of crimes, in particular, murders that take place every day (Allen, & Shavell, 2005).

However, the findings of the FBI also indicate a difference in the rates between the states that have demolished the death penalty and those that have not done. In fact, since 1990 to 2010, those states that ended the execution of the death penalty had a 4% decrease in the number of crimes, including the number murders and the level of violence while committing crime. The scientists claim that this takes place because the concerned people could be provoked by the death penalty execution, and this leads to committing more crimes. At the same time, such statistics include the number of murders among the police officers (Charles, & Yale, 2004).

Simultaneously, the conception of the death penalty produces an intolerable connection between the violence and legal measures. On the one hand, the institutions of social justice act in a way to use the violence as a means to punish the criminals. On the other hand, such a position of the legal authorities restricts the human freedoms and rights of every person to live (Babbie, 2007).

Hence, the actions of the legal institutions are aimed at the utilization of violence by means to protect the society from the violent actions of criminals. Nevertheless, there is a strong argument concerning the execution of the lawful violence. In particular, the criminal violence should be used only in case it is publicly considered fair and justifiable (Woolf, 2004).

The Death Penalty Diminishes the Society

It is generally accepted that the highly civilized societies are not in favor of torture of any kind, even though it is fair and / or has a positive influence on the community. The same applies to the death penalty. Many people think that it is not applicable to a conventional society, even though it corresponds to the most violent crimes. In other words, in case the legal institutions execute the death penalty, it is implemented with no remorse, which repeats the same crime without any punishment (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000a).

In fact, since in many countries the execution of the death penalty is not performed in public, it is not considered a humiliating community demonstration. Nevertheless, the death penalty still has a public focus, which means the community has an overall understanding of the process. Such a public demonstration is intended to teach a lesson for the public, in particular, the people who are challenged about the social justice and retribution (Kronenwetter, 2001).


In fact, the Death Penalty Information Center, the capital punishment cost a lot of money to the government. In some cases, the expenditures of one execution of the death penalty may cost more than $10 million. At the same time, the high expenditure allocated for the capital punishment was one of the most influencing factors that allow abandoning the death penalty. For example, during the last fifteen years, New York and New Jersey spent around $200 million and $250 million accordingly with no executions (McCafferty, 2010).

However, from the position of the countries where the death penalty costs a lot, the life imprisonment may cost much more to a particular government. In this case, some states continue executing criminals based on the high expenditure.

Therefore, the counter-arguments of the legal authorities fall into two categories. On the one hand, people have a misleading position concerning the cost of the death penalty. On the other hand, they cannot believe the cost factor has such an influence on this capital punishment (Banner, 2002).

People are Not Taking Responsibility for Their Actions

The responsibility of people is what adds more contemplation towards the ethical nature of using the death penalty as a punishment for the violent crimes. It should be noted that the legal authorities believe that the public relatively accepts such a capital punishment; however, the people do not accept the way it is applied (Williams, 2012).

For example, in some states in the United States of America, people were executed being considered insane. It is perceived that the criminals who are sentenced to the death penalty are considered guilty as they completely understand what they have done and thus deserve to be punished for that (Tempest, 2005).

Alternatively, in case people have been accepted as insane automatically rejects their understanding of what they have done. In this case, these criminals should not be executed with the death penalty. Despite this fact, there are many cases of execution of the insane people with the death penalty all over the world. Hence, such people should be convicted committing crimes, but they are considered insane and do not perceive themselves being guilty. In the following cases, it is necessary to put them in the secure mental institutions. This measure will protect the society from various crimes (Steiker, 2005).

It should be stressed that it is unethical to apply the capital punishment and / or death penalty towards the insane people. At the same time, it is important to monitor the criminals and pay specific attention to those cases where the offenders have been sane while committing crimes but claim to be insane in order to escape from the execution of the death penalty (Simon, 2007).

Analysis of the Supporting Research

While working on the literature review, I was horrified to reveal the statistics on the death penalty executions for the last decade. The death penalty seems to serve as a solution to the existing problem of crimes in the modern world. However, it also seems that a weapon is directed towards the most violent and cruel people on the planet (Tempest, 2005).

The research was based on the analysis of numerous factors that define the nature of the death penalty and its execution beliefs. These factors include the following elements: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, avoidance of re-offending, closure and vindication, willingness to help the police, a Japanese argument, the ultimate warning, the degree of cruelty for the death penalty, and the comparison of the death penalty and a murder (Svendsen, 2005).

On the one hand, these elements are fully justifiable and serve as a means to protect the society from the criminals. On the other hand, these elements indicate that the death penalty is an anticipated “weapon” against the criminals. The meaning of the word “weapon” is not accidental, as it uses different methods to kill people to maintain social justice. It turns out that these elements are fair to the criminals, their cruelty and violence committed to the innocent people. Meanwhile, the governments of different countries use it as an instrument of social justice. In other words, it is considered that the death penalty will protect people and at the same time will serve as a caution to the potential criminals (Williams, 2012).

According to the data provided by the US Supreme Court, the judicial system is based on the execution of the sentence that is fair enough due to the seriousness of the committed crimes. The review of the relevant literature addresses the facts about the retribution of the criminals. In part, this is true to my understanding. However, it is not fair since the retribution is a negative concept that brings even more revenge. As a result, there are more crimes and suffering of the ordinary people (Marzilli, 2008).

In the Old Testament, there is a phrase known as “an eye for an eye.” In case people can look at the problems of social justice, as well as at the death penalty execution, they will not see any justice there. In part, the criminals, especially the murderers, surely deserve such a capital punishment. However, they are also human beings, and the government seems to deprive them of the most important thing they have – their lives. Surely, it is considered that the criminals may have taken lives or committed other serious wrongdoings, but they will not have a slight chance to realize what they have done if they are killed almost instantly (Streib, 2000).

The understanding of deterrence also has different meanings and could also be perceived differently by the criminals. On the one hand, the death penalty serves as a tool to discourage people from committing crimes. On the other hand, some criminals may be willing to fight back and perhaps save the other criminals to pay back the deaths of the killed convicts. As a result, such perceptions of the deterrence could have dual value for the overall community (Donohue, & Wolfers, 2005).

The other element of interest is the rehabilitation. It was the most influential aspect of the research. In fact, many representatives of the legal institutions believe that the rehabilitation is possible, even though some people have committed rather serious crimes. At times, there were cases that people have changed their perceptions of living. In part, this happened due to the death penalty sentence. In part, it was because of the life imprisonment without parole. Both reasons are valuable enough to start treating the life differently (Becker, 2006).

Hence, some people could be interested in understanding their actions and try to change them in the future. Certainly, they do not have a chance to resurrect those people whom they killed, but they can challenge themselves towards a better life in a contemporary society. At least, it will illustrate a sense of the rehabilitation and could be considered as its proof (Robinson, 2011).

The overall position of the social justice seems to be clear. However, it is mostly aimed at avoiding the crimes in the future. The legal authorities are striving to protect the society from the criminals. At the same time, if the death penalty is considered as a “murder” from the position of the government, it does not cause justice but rather continues injustice by killing people because they also killed other people. It seems to be confused, but if to consider the re-offending of people, social justice can think of something more humane than the death penalty (Mandery, 2005).

For example, it could be the closure and vindication. However, it is difficult to take anything from the government, especially if there is no way of getting back the life of a particular person. Meanwhile, the government prosecutes the criminals and punishes them according to the committed crimes. One of the lies that are used to avoid the death penalty is the willingness to help the police in prosecuting other criminals (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000b).

The same happens here; the death penalty is replaced with the life imprisonment without parole, but it seems not to teach the criminals anything. Nevertheless, there is one element that could serve as a basis to make the criminals rehabilitate by their own will. This element is called a Japanese argument. In the way it is executed, it may serve as an instrument to protect the society, as well as to establish the rehabilitation of the criminals (Date, 2000).

The final elements include the ultimate warning and cruelty of the death penalty. I believe these two elements should go together since they add more value to each other and bring more implications that are positive. I truly agree that such a capital punishment could serve as an ultimate warning for the potential criminals (Sunstein, & Vermeule, 2005).

However, it also has other interpretation from the position of criminals. For example, the vast majority of criminals could think not of failing to commit crime but of how not to be caught by the police, which do not fulfill the inclination of the social system of justice. At the same time, the cruelty of the death penalty could also be interpreted differently (MacLean, & French, 2013).

In particular, the criminals could perceive the death penalty as a way to commit suicide. For example, the terrorist attacks are committed in the same way, the people commit serious crimes that affect the masses and are happy to be killed either by the death penalty or by themselves when get caught (Donohue, & Wolfers, 2005).

Overall, by examining the literature review on the aspect of ethics, the death penalty could be considered ethical from the position of the government and some communities. These people either include those people who have been under attack or could have been a victim of serious crimes. As a result, these people may treat the death penalty as the only way out to fight against the injustice and thus protect the society (Katz, Levitt, & Shustorovich, 2003).

Analysis of the Opposing Research

The opposing research is a bit different from the original research study on the execution of the death penalty. It seeks to understand the purpose of the elements that do not reflect the execution of the death penalty. These elements should serve as the justification for committing the death penalty in the future (Robinson, 2011).

The emphasis of this part is based on the values people have concerning the life of a human, the human’s life to live, the fact of executing innocent people, the contemplation on the retribution as an unethical way of executing the criminals, the perception of the vengeance, retribution, uniqueness, deterrence, brutality, diminished society, expenses, and taking responsibility.

In my opinion, the life is the most important thing people have. It is the gift that people have to treasure and make it worth having. However, sometimes, there are cases when the value of the human life is not that appreciated. On the one hand, this happens when a murderer takes away the life of another person. On the other hand, this continues when the system of social justice takes back the life of a criminal for killing a person (Hale, 1997).

It turns out that the humanity has no feasible value for the lives of a human being. This opinion is justified by the number of murders and executed death penalties at least for the last decade. At the same time, the life of a human being corresponds to the human right to live. The humanity has been given this fight as a freedom without a choice, but with a great responsibility (American Bar Association, 2000).

Therefore, it is important to know the connection of the social system of justice and the right of people to live. Simultaneously, the life of every person is rather valuable, and initially the people did not give it. Instead, it was granted for unknown reasons, but with a set of ethical norms and perceptions of ethical behavior to save the life of a person (Posner, 2006).

The next element of interest is the execution of the innocent people. Unfortunately, such cases exist today, and many innocent people have already suffered from such a system of justice. To support the point, the research showed that there were many cases when people were found not guilty over years. However, this took place long after the people had been executed with the death penalty. In fact, this does not bring the life back, but it should teach people simple ethical norms of ethical behavior (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006).

The examples of executing the death penalty also address the retribution process, which is considered unethical from the position of the criminal world. Therefore, it is believed that the execution of the death penalty is applied in the wrong way, which is unethical towards the criminals. The next aspect of concern is the vengeance or revenge that is shared by the vast majority of criminals (Dezhbakhsh, Rubin & Shepherd, 2003).

The overall process of executing the social justice, including the application of the death penalty, seems to have much revenge from the position of the prisoners. In fact, these prisoners are sentenced to either the death penalty or the life imprisonment that generate negative perceptions regarding the system of social justice. In particular, the vengeance is closely related to the retribution and process of executing innocent people with the death penalty (Kronenwetter, 2001).

The social justice system is inadequate and has made mistakes. However, it is not acceptable to make such mistakes in case the lives of people are engaged. In fact, the criminals are in the position to deserve the death penalty as a punishment, but it should be more liable and less cruel or violent compared to the committed crimes. In other words, this is the uniqueness of executing the death penalty (Ehrlich, 2005).

The major uniqueness that I personally find in the death penalty is that a criminal could be sentenced to the death penalty, and in case a criminal agrees to cooperate with the police, he or she gets a life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. It is important since it allows the criminals to rethink the value of life and strive to become a better person. Surely, it is not possible to rescue the victim, but it is possible to prevent the other victims in the future (Amnesty International, 2000).

The person who is convicted of a murder and sentenced to the death penalty has more chances to rehabilitate. In contrast, the people who have been sentenced to the death penalty almost immediately have no such chances. Overall, the uniqueness of the death penalty relates to the opportunity of selecting another path in life that is free from crimes, violence, and cruelty (Gaie, 2004).

At the same time, the death penalty and retribution relate to each other by means of the arguments regarding the capital punishment and its effectiveness. In fact, based on the literature review, there is no clear evidence that the death penalty really help to make people rehabilitate without any retribution. Instead, the analysis of the relevant literature has proven that the places that execute the death penalty suffer from more crimes and revenge. In addition, the level of revenge and number of committed crimes are also defined by the number of executed sentences, especially the death penalty (Department of Health, 2005).

The deterrence is another aspect of concern. It also relates to the means of punishment, its cruelty, and violence towards the criminals. Simultaneously, the deterrence has a greater chance to occur in case people are contemplating about not being caught by the police and sentenced to prison with a punishment in a form of the death penalty (Johnson, & Zimring, 2009).

Hence, based on the findings of scientists, the death penalty could not serve as a source of deterrence. Instead, the governments of all countries should strive to minimize the number of punishments with the death penalty. They should also change the capital punishment into the life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Finally, the legal organs of justice should minimize the number of crimes by increasing the number of convictions and arrests, as these are the factors that have a positive influence on the deterrence (Fears, 2007).

The next aspect of emphasis is the brutality of the society. I personally consider that such cruel and vital measures are also brutal towards the criminals. Moreover, based on the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the Death Penalty Information Center, the rating of crimes in the states that do not use the death penalty has shown to be decreased compared to the states that continue to use this form of punishment (Bassham, 1991).

As a result, such actions of the social justice actually diminish the society as a whole. In case people knew that it has a positive influence on the lives of different people and protects them in the society, that would make more sense. Meanwhile, such a system of justice has shown to be imperfect and mostly ineffective whereas the opposite has not been confirmed by various research studies (Haney, & Logan, 1994).

The next aspect of interest is the expenses that were the major reason why many states have stopped the use of the death penalty. It would be more favorable if they stopped using it for the reason of ethics and related norms of the society, but not the cost of the death execution. To me, this is unbelievable (Allen, & Shavell, 2005).

In fact, taking care of a particular life is a great responsibility. Hence, it is even a greater responsibility to take away the life. The situation that has been shown in the literature review acknowledges that the vast majority of the legal institutions behave neither ethically nor morally. At the same time, they refuse to take responsibility for taking away the life of different people, and it does not matter whether they deserve it or not. In fact, people have not been given the initial right to give birth to other people; therefore, they have no right to take it away (Gawande, 2006).


The conclusion that could be based on the given study addresses one single question, which is rather important to consider. Today, the idea of the social justice is unclear. On the one hand, it raises the question of rehabilitation through the system of justice. On the other hand, it raises an opposite question, which is retribution. Thus, the society as a whole and the legal institutions in particular should prevent crimes in the future (Hanna, 2000).

However, it seems that the actions of the legal authorities lead to completely different results. It is also important to acknowledge that this particular conclusion is based on the findings for those countries that still use the death penalty as a matter of punishment for criminals. Based on my opinion, I have examined both sides of the death penalty (Amnesty International, 2008).

The major focus was about the ethical implications with respect to the system of social justice. A special attention was on the objectives of using the death penalty as a means of punishment for the criminals. At the same time, the research emphasized the aspects of benefits for the modern society while using the capital punishment (Alvarez, 2006).

Personally, I consider that both options have the right to exist in the modern society. However, it should be more oriented towards the ultimate warning, but not the execution. The best practice of encouraging rehabilitation and eliminating retribution should also be grounded on using the death penalty as a Japanese argument (Charles, & Yale, 2004).

This makes sense as it is proven to be more effective among the criminals. In fact, the scientists claim that the constant waiting for the death penalty leads to a greater rehabilitation, whereas the execution of such a capital punishment does not teach anything, and the criminal continues to commit serious crimes without any regret or remorse (Woolf, 2004).

Instead, the death penalty should be used as a capital punishment that a criminal awaits for the rest of life and / or imprisonment. However, it is important to sentence only the guilty people and avoid any possible mistakes connected to the social system of justice. Nevertheless, I personally consider that in any case the system of social justice do not have power or authority and even the right to take away the life of another person (Babbie, 2007).

This does not change no matter how violently and / or cruelly the criminal has committed a wrongdoing. The same relates to the execution of the murderers. Despite their actions of injustice, the death penalty will not be anything, but killing a person, which assumes that some people cannot kill others without any punishment and others can, which is, in fact, legally justified (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000a).

Such a position concerning the death penalty also relates to other types of crimes, such as fraud, raping, treason and others. Therefore, the same measures are applied to them, which I consider unfair almost in any case. It should be noted that I do value the decisions of the countries that have abandoned using the death penalty at all. In fact, as it was stated in the research, the vast majority of countries have refused using the capital punishment, or at least, they have not used it for a minimum of ten to fifteen years (Kronenwetter, 2001).

To support the point, the research covered a number of research studies on whether the death penalty is effective and ethical and deserves to exist in the contemporary system of justice. The vast majority of findings turn out to state that the death penalty has proven to be ineffective and at the same time unethical towards the criminals (Tempest, 2005).

In fact, these studies were conducted during ten years and had similar results from year to year. Consequently, such studies could be used to spread the information about ineffectiveness of the death penalty and promote these findings across the countries that still use the death penalty as a major punishment for the cruel and violent crimes (Steiker, 2005).

I strongly believe that the next step should concern the abolishment of the death penalty as a matter of the capital punishment all over the world. However, this could be managed in case the legal authorities of different countries support the claim of the scientists and abolish the use of the death penalty once and forever (Williams, 2012).

Finally, based on the conducted research studies over the past ten years and the review of contemporary information about the death penalty, it is possible to admit that the death penalty is unethical and only destroys the modern society. In addition, it tends to have more implications that are negative and has nothing to do with the social justice (Banner, 2002).

Faith Perspective

Based on the personal beliefs, I also consider that the death penalty is not the option and not even an alternative that could be used to maintain justice in the society around the world. Moreover, it is completely unethical as it breaks the law for which it punishes criminals. As a result, such actions lead to the increased retribution that does not correspond to the rehabilitation of any kind (McCafferty, 2010).

My opinion in this issue is supported by the personal faith objectives. I do believe that people are not in the position to take away the life of other people. Even though the criminals commit crimes, the government has no right to take away their lives, as this is the prerogative of the Holy Lord (Simon, 2007).

At the same time, God gives people an opportunity to change in this life before they continue their journey back to Him. In case they can take advantage of the circumstances and opportunities, they will have a better life in the future. In case they are not given an opportunity to rehabilitate, they will suffer not only in this life, but also in a different one. Overall, the research findings support the same claim that the death penalty is not ethical at all, as it has no morale while executing the death sentence (Svendsen, 2005).

I believe in the Holy Lord and I consider that no people can take away the life of others since this is the prerogative of God. A similar rule corresponds to the lives of the ordinary people. For example, even a family member has no right to take away the life of other family members despite the circumstances and not considering that one was a part of the birth process (Streib, 2000).

The same rule of faith applies to the people who were sentenced to the death penalty after committing serious crimes. In other words, the death penalty could only be used to frighten people, but the public should not know that. Instead, it could be positioned as if the countries still use the death penalty, but in fact, they agree the time when the death penalty will be executed, but it has never actually executed it (Williams, 2012).

Instead, the prisoners will be put for the life imprisonment without parole; they will also have enough time to reconsider their lives and committed crimes. In such cases, the rule of faith works. I strongly believe that at least one half of the convicted criminals will realize what they have done and how important it is to change in the future (Marzilli, 2008).

In fact, this makes sense even though they will live in prison for the rest of their lives. From that time, they will have to devote their lives to the Holy Lord. I do believe this is the one who should punish the criminals according to their wrongdoings and has all the right and privileges to do so (Donohue, & Wolfers, 2005).

Recommendations to All Stakeholders

There are six stakeholders that are generally accepted in the vast majority of cases related to the death penalty. Prior to this, it is important to have a clear understanding about who these stakeholders are. In particular, the stakeholders referred are the people who are engaged into the process of executing the death penalty either directly or indirectly (Becker, 2006).

These groups of people are affected by the death penalty in different ways. The major groups comprise the lawyers, prosecutors, taxpayers, communities, religious groups, and politicians. It is necessary to explain the role of every group and its relation to the death penalty as well as provide recommendations that would bring more value to the use of the death penalty in order to protect the society and predict the commitment of crimes all over the world. Refer to the explanations and recommendations below:

· The lawyers are the major parties in the whole process of executing the death penalty. This is explained due to the cost of their services, especially if the cases take a long time to be completed in favor or against the convicted. Therefore, the recommendations would be to examine all the details aconcerning the capital punishment. The goal should be to save the life of a person, surely, in case he/she is not guilty. At the same time, the purpose should be not to take as much money for the additional services but to protect the interests of the clients. In fact, in most cases, the clients pay huge money to the lawyers for the time dedicated towards the learning process of the legal issues. The major recommendation is to work out the anticipated strategy for combating or defending the clients. The money will come back in return as a gratitude for the successful work done (Mandery, 2005).

· The other party is the prosecutors, whose major aims are to convict the suspect and make sure he/she is sentenced to prison with a punishment applicable to the committed crime (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000b).

· Another party is the taxpayers. They are the people who are in charge of the expenditures used in order to execute the criminals. This makes sense since the death costs are paid from the overall budget of the country, which is subsidized by the taxpayers. Hence, the recommendations to the taxpayers would be at least to know the allocation of the funds collected from the taxes paid by the residents of a particular country. In fact, the death penalty is more expensive than sentencing a person to the life imprisonment. Therefore, the taxpayers should make appropriate conclusions and take actions to stop the death penalty without hesitation (Sunstein, & Vermeule, 2005).

· One more party is the communities that are the parts of the death penalty jurisdictions. The idea is to cope with the rates of crimes in a particular country. Hence, the recommendations would be to judge not only based on the evidence, but also on the inner feelings regarding whether the convicted person is guilty or not (MacLean, & French, 2013).

· The religious groups are also the parties involved in the death penalty process. In other words, the leaders of these groups greatly contribute to the capital punishment. The role they take is to define the ethics and / or morality of the sentence and justify it according to the religious perceptions. The recommendations to these groups would be to take their decision wisely, which means never support the death penalty and search for alternative forms of punishment. They could also conduct various religious studies in prisons as to help the criminals to rehabilitate, especially in case of the life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. At the same time, they should be always negative about sentencing people to death and should justify it with the doctrines of humanity and religion, including the aspects of ethics and morality in every single case of conviction (Donohue, & Wolfers, 2005).

· The politicians are the final groups of the stakeholders involved in the death penalty process. In fact, their roles are always different; however, they follow the same in interests, which is the power over other people. Therefore, the recommendations would be not to use the death penalty as an advantage to their political careers. It is also important not to manipulate with such a sensitive situation as the life of another person. In other words, it would be wise not to “play” in God and be ethical and driven by the principles of morality when influencing the death sentence. In addition, the politicians could also become the leaders of various movements towards the abandonment of the death penalty and support of the convicted criminals. For example, it makes sense to take advantage of the political careers by helping guilty people in their rehabilitation. The purpose is to exclude any possible mistakes of sentencing innocent people to the death penalty. The goal is to benefit from the social power towards the good of the nation. As a result, this will also help to minimize the crimes and improve the circumstances that have a negative impact on the tolerable formation of the personal identities of people in the contemporary societies.


Allen, R. J., & Shavell, A. (2005). Further reflections on the guillotine. Amnesty International. USA: The Death Penalty and Juvenile Offenders. New York, NY: Amnesty International USA Publications.

Alvarez, J. (2006). Saving the world. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.

American Bar Association. (2000). A Gathering momentum: Continuing impacts of the American Bar Association call for a moratorium on executions. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.

Amnesty International. (2000). The death penalty. United States of America: Amnesty International Publications.

Amnesty International. (2008). On the wrong side of history: Children and the death penalty in the USA. New York, NY: Amnesty International USA Publications.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 9.

Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Banner, Stuart. (2002). The death penalty: An American history. Harvard University Press, 10(20), 2.

Bassham, G. (1991). Rethinking the emerging jurisprudence of juvenile death. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 5(2), 467–501.

Becker, G. (2006). On the economics of capital punishment. The Economists’ Voice, 1(3), 4.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Capital punishment. USA: Department of Justice.

Charles A. M. III & Yale, M. D. (2004). Symposium judicature. Wrongful convictions, Journal of the American Judicature Society, 2(20), 6.

Date, S. V. (2000). The high price of killing killers. Palm Beach Post, 4(1), 1.

Dezhbakhsh, H., Rubin, P., & Shepherd, J. (2003). Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect? New evidence from post-moratorium panel data. American Law and Economics Review, 3(5), 344.

Donohue, J., & Wolfers, J. (2005). Uses and abuses of statistical evidence in the death penalty debate. Stanford Law Review, 5(8), 787.

Ehrlich, I. (2005). The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A question of life and death. American Economic Review, 65(3), 397-417.

Fears, D. (2007). Exonerations change how justice system builds a prosecution: DNA tests have cleared 200 convicts. Washington Post, 6(3), 3.

Gaie, J. B. R. (2004). The ethics of medical involvement in capital punishment: A philosophical discussion. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gawande, A. (2006). When law and ethics collide – why physicians participate in executions. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), 3(5), 4.

Gawande, A. et al: (2008). Physicians and execution – highlights from a discussion on lethal Injection. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), 4(2), 8.

Hale, R. L. (1997). A review of juvenile executions in America. Criminology Series,3(3), 4. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

Haney, C. & Logan, D. (1994). Broken promise: The Supreme Court’s response to social science research on capital punishment. Journal of Social Issues, 50(75), 91.

Hanna, J. (2000). Mandatory life term for teen rejected. Chicago Tribune.

Johnson, D. T., & Zimring, F. E. (2009). The next frontier: National development, political change, and the death penalty in Asia. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Katz, L., Levitt, S., & Shustorovich, E. (2003). Prison conditions, capital punishment, and deterrence. American Law and Economics Review, 5(3), 18.

Kronenwetter, M. (2001). Capital punishment: A reference handbook (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Liebman, J. S., Fagan, J., & West, V. (2000a). Capital attrition: Error rates in capital cases, 1973-1995. Texas Law Review, 78, 1839-1861.

Liebman, J. S., Fagan, J., & West,V. (2000b). A broken system: Error rates in capital cases 1973–1995. New York, NY: Columbia Law School.

MacLean, C. F., & French, L. (2013). The fifth field: The story of the 96 American soldiers sentenced to death and executed in Europe and North Africa in World War II. Schiffer Publishing.

Mandery, E. J. (2005). Capital punishment: A balanced examination. Boston, London: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Marzilli, A. (2008). Capital Punishment – point-counterpoint (2-nd ed.). New York: Chelsea House.

McCafferty, J. A. (Ed.). (2010). Capital punishment. New Brunswick [N.J.]: AldineTransaction.

Posner, R. (2006). The economics of capital punishment. The Economists’ Voice,3(2), 5.

Robinson, M. (2011). Assessing the death penalty using Justice Theory. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 3(2), 27-66.

Simon, R. (2007). A comparative analysis of capital punishment: Statutes, policies, frequencies, and public attitudes the world over. New York: Lexington Books.

Steiker, C. S. (2005). Capital punishment is not morally required: Deterrence, deontology, and the death penalty. Harvard Public Law Working Paper. Stanford Law Review, 125(4), 3.

Streib, V. L. (2000). The juvenile death penalty today: Death sentences and executions for juvenile crimes, 1973–2000. Ada, OH: Ohio Northern University Claude W. Pettit College of Law.

Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2005). Is capital punishment morally required? Acts, omissions, and life-life tradeoffs. Stanford Law Review, 2(7), 3.

Svendsen, L. F. H. (2005). The Philosophy of Cruelty. Ondskabens filosofi: FORLAGET KLIM.

Tempest, R. (2005). Death row often means a long life. Los Angeles Times,6(2), 4.

Williams, D. R. (2012). White paper on ethical issues concerning capital punishment. The World’s Medical Association, Inc.

Woolf, A. (2004). World issues – capital punishment. Singapore: Chrysalis Education.