Death Penalty

Many countries in the world still practise the death penalty and Singapore is one of them. Over the years there have been controversies over the use of death penalty with its supporters claiming that it deters crime while its detractors critising it for being immoral and ignoring human rights. I, for the record, is in support of the death penalty, having witnessed the low crime rates in Singapore as compared to many other countries which do not pracise the death penalty. In fact, Singapore has the lowest murder rate per capita in the world, according to wikipedia and I am convinced that the death penalty has the ability to deter crime.

In "The Morality of Capital Punishment" by Gary S. Becker, the death penalty is said to have a deterrent effect because humans have a natural horror for death and therefore will resist the notion pf committing crimes that warrants the death penalty. However, the author did admit that the death penalty has its weaknesses. For example, it will make murderers more determined to escape detection and thus take drastic actions to prevent being caught, such a killing a rape victim. I think that this should not be a point that opponents of the death penalty should capitalise on because as correctly pointed out by the author, advanced forensic technology and knowledge of DNA through various samples should be enough to nab the criminals. Just like in Singapore, where criminal cases are more often than not solved within 24 hours using such advanced technological equipments to capture criminals. In addition, the author also pointed out another limitation of the death penalty, that is it might possibly kill innocent people wrongly convicted of crimes that warrants the death penalty. There might be such a possibility in actual fact but I staunchly believe that the legal system of today protects the rights of criminal suspects and there are many avenues for appeal if the verdict do not go the convicts' way. Therefore, such a possibility of wrong judgements is extremely rare and thus should not be a reason to argue for the abolition of the death penalty.

In "Beyond The Death Penalty Debate" by Antonio Cassese, the author states that the death penalty is against human rights as no one has the moral authority to take the life of another person. I personally believe that people should be responsible for what they do and should accept the penalty if they flout the rules, be it death or not. Besides, the author also said that convicts might receive degrading treatments and other acts of inhumanity in prison. Wouldn't it be better for the convicts to be put to death rather than make them suffer more pain? The death penalty would be a more humane choice in this case as the pain of the convicts is shortened.

There is only one conclusion to this issue. The death penalty should not be abolished because it plays a big part in deterring crime rate and as argued above, all the limitations and criticisms of the death penalty have been duly addressed and it seems that they can be easily overcome. Hence, I am in favour of the death penalty.