Issue 149

Waterfront Debate: For the Death Penalty

20th November 2006

Currently in society the death penalty is a controversial issue as the debate continues for and against it.

One of the purposes of the law is to provide equitable retaliation for the offended party. In the case of the death penalty, retribution is a life for a life: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

The death penalty is thought to act as a deterrent. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will then think twice before committing a murder for fear of losing their own life. The death penalty certainly 'deters' the murderer who is executed and prevents recidivism. Murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, either in prison, or in society if they escape or are released.

After all, the innocent lives taken by convicted murderers add up to far more than the supposedly 23 innocent people executed this century. There is no doubt whatsoever that keeping murderers alive in prison rather than putting them to death is much more dangerous to innocents.

There are claims that there are alternatives to the death penalty such as life in prison without parole. But does this serve just as well as the death penalty? The answer to this is shown in the possible consequences of this alternative: criminals murdering prison guards and other inmates within prison and killing citizens if they escape. Putting a murderer in prison for life isn't good enough as they could escape, laws change with time and the murderer could be granted release early. The bottom line is that as long as the murderer is still alive there is always a chance that he will strike again.

Prison is also expensive and taxpayer's money is spent on supporting the comfortable lifestyle of the murderer. The main thing is not which is most expensive - the death penalty or life in prison without parole - but what the society's money is used for. Money used in death penalty cases is mainly for the judicial system itself so that law and order can been guaranteed as far as possible until the execution, and so public money is a good investment for hopefully a successful outcome. The money used for lifetime in prison is also used for the judicial system but there are more expenses after the judicial process because the murderer will have to be paid for, in terms of guarding, room, food, clothes, and medical service. We will be paying for murderers to live and many people rightly find this outrageous and offensive.

Organisations such as Amnesty International claim that the death penalty discriminates against people of other races or the mentally ill, but in theory these aspects are not an issue as a murderer is a murderer regardless of his or her colour, class or IQ.

The question we need to ask is: If we place the victims of the violent criminal and the murderer on one end of the scale, what do we have to place on the other scale in order for it to be even and just? The death penalty should be the most obvious answer to most people for full justice to be given.

It may not be the preferred option of the vast majority of the general public, but it may just be that there is a place for the death penalty.

Kerrie Scholefield