Would the death penalty reduce violent crime?

I’m against the death penalty. Let’s talk about why I oppose the death penalty.

 

I am opposed to the death penalty. Most sex offenders and murderers commit their crimes while in a violent, pathological state. Other countries treat child molesters as mentally ill, not just criminals, and provide them with long-term treatment and correctional programs. These mental illnesses are caused by social and environmental factors other than the offender’s innate malignancy. Childhood marginalization, abuse, and criminal scars can all contribute to the development of these mental illnesses. As a society, we need to work to eliminate such environments as a matter of welfare, but we are also responsible for creating them. In addition, sexual predators may have been victims of the same sexual crimes as children and become mentally ill as a result, but society has failed to prevent such crimes. Therefore, when it comes to holding a person responsible for a heinous crime, the person who committed the crime is of course the most responsible, but if there is a social environment that caused the person to develop a mental illness that makes it impossible for him or her to think rationally, the responsibility cannot be placed solely on the criminal. However, the death penalty puts the blame for all crimes on the offender alone.
Furthermore, if the vast majority of the criminal population suffers from a mental illness, it is possible to treat it through long-term treatment and correctional programs, as is done in other countries, so that they can think rationally like normal people and are less likely to relapse. In fact, one of the biggest reasons in favor of the death penalty is that it takes away the life of the criminal and removes him permanently from society, thus eliminating the possibility of reoffending, but people are capable of improvement, and if the crime was committed due to a medical condition, the chances of improvement are very high if the medical condition is treated, so there is no need to resort to extreme measures. The purpose of punishments other than the death penalty is to prevent and deter recidivism, as well as to reform and rehabilitate the offender and re-socialize them so that they will not commit crimes again. However, the death penalty is not in line with the idea of reformative punishment to completely eliminate the possibility of recidivism. In other cases, the likelihood of rehabilitation is very high, especially if the offense was committed in a pathological state. In the past, punishment was understood as harmful as retribution for the crime, but the expression of anger focused on the idea of retribution does nothing to reform the offender or help the victim. If we are faithful to our feelings at the time, the criminal should be executed, but it has nothing to do with the relief of the victim of the crime and simply allows the victim to get retributive satisfaction. Therefore, rather than understanding punishment in this way, it is right to understand it in terms of improvement and edification as suggested above and give room for improvement to those who are likely to improve.
Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states that all citizens have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness. The state has the duty to affirm and guarantee the inviolable and fundamental human rights of individuals, and therefore the state does not have the right to deprive a person of life. However, the death penalty is a violation of this human dignity. No one can kill a human being casually or treat them harshly without reason. When a country’s citizens or diplomats are kidnapped in a conflict between nations, a state will often suffer the greatest losses to rescue them. When a stealth fighter jet with an astronomical value breaks down, even if there is a good chance of saving it, we don’t blame the pilot for abandoning it if his life is at stake, because human life is more valuable and dignified than anything else. At first glance, this may seem to be nothing more than a circular argument that answers the question “why are human beings valuable?” with the answer “because they are valuable,” but because we are human, human dignity is a very important value that society cannot give up in order to exist. Therefore, protecting it with laws and prioritizing its value is a priority that the death penalty ignores.
We live in a liberal democracy, where human rights and human life are the first priority of the state, and we do not allow others to take them away. The death penalty, however, contradicts this and promotes a culture of disrespect for life, as it is seen as a demonstration of the absoluteness of human life by a state that has made it illegal for people to deprive criminals of their lives. When we see people who commit crimes but die easily, it breaks the perception in our minds that human life is the most precious thing, and the idea that people who commit heinous crimes deserve to die becomes dominant, the criminal becomes a person who deserves to die, and human life becomes something that can be easily taken. The goal of punishing the guilty cannot justify the means of taking a life that disregards the most dignified of human beings.
In the same way, an executioner who executes a condemned prisoner is also killing in the name of justice, which means that a person who uses the means of killing to punish a guilty person by order of the state cannot be justified, and in fact, people who do such things tend to have a lot of remorse, and the memoirs of many executioners show how much they suffer from remorse. In other words, they also harm innocent people.
When a crime is committed, it is human to assign blame and determine the punishment. Because it is a trial conducted by imperfect human beings, there is always the possibility of a mistrial due to insufficient evidence, inadequate defense, etc. It is also a loss for the country if it is later proven to be a mistake, and the public will not trust the people who made the mistake. As mentioned above, a person’s life is worth more than any other value, and it cannot be compared to the situation when an object is lost and will never be found. Even if the object is the most prized possession, it cannot be compared to a human life. The death penalty cannot restore the life of a person who has been lost due to human error and misjudgment. It can deprive an innocent person of the right to life based on the wrong judgment of a third party other than the victim or the accused.
The death penalty, which is the maximum legal penalty in 72 countries, is used as a deterrent to crime. One of the most common arguments in favor of capital punishment is that the death penalty is the most severe punishment available, so people are less likely to commit crimes for fear of punishment. This makes it seem like the most effective way to deter crime, but when you look at the rates of felonies in places where the death penalty has been abolished and in places where it has not, there is no scientific proof that it is a deterrent. It’s not just that countries with the death penalty have lower crime rates than countries that have abolished it. According to the United Nations, Canada had the highest homicide rate per 100,000 people in 1975 at 3.09, but by 1980, the year before it abolished the death penalty for murder, the rate was 2.41 and has been declining ever since. In 2003, 27 years after the abolition of the death penalty, the homicide rate was 1.73 per 100,000 people, 44% lower than in 1975 and the lowest rate in the past 30 years. In 2005, the rate increased to 2.0, a third of the rate in the year after the death penalty was abolished. Even though South Korea hasn’t had a death penalty for a long time, it’s still possible that a verdict could be issued at any time. However, as we’ve seen, South Korea’s high-profile child sex crimes continue to rise, as do other heinous crimes. Therefore, the general deterrent effect of the death penalty is not much different from the deterrent effect of life imprisonment, so maintaining the death penalty does not bring much benefit.
In a society where crimes, both big and small, are constantly happening, especially when it comes to high-profile crimes like child sex crimes, serial killings, kidnappings, and other heinous crimes, it can be tempting to think that the death penalty is a necessary evil. However, when we think about it logically, we realize that this is not the case. In particular, Korea has ended its history of dictatorship and self-righteousness, and has achieved national unity through equality of employment between men and women, labor-management coexistence, and various welfare systems to redistribute income appropriately and resolve the gap between the rich and the poor and the divide between classes. In addition, the efforts of religious and charitable organizations are not only raising the reverence for life, but there is also a significant change in national consciousness, with an increasing number of victims forgiving perpetrators on death row and seeking clemency. In addition, internationally, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms emphasize the abolition of the death penalty, and the number of countries that have joined the Convention is increasing. Given these trends and logic, the time has come to ‘kill’ the death penalty.