Life for Life or Life for Less: Voices against the Death Penalty?

Abstract

In this age, there is a growing sentiment to protect human rights in broad ramifications across the globe. A major sign of this deepening interest is the emerging consensus for the unrestricted demand for the protection of right to life, championed by the United Nations and supported by its numerous affiliate organizations and groups. It has even extended to the point of seeking total abolition of the death penalty without recourse to the gravity of offences involved and the consequences of a loose society. Granted that there have been, and are likely to continue, errors in the strict application of death penalty as a result of human fallibility, it cannot be denied that there are clear cases where capital offenders can be identified and the imposition of capital punishment justified. Essentially therefore, the pressure for unconditional abolition of death penalty does not appear to be fair, considering the danger inherent in granting heinous criminals a clear coast to carry out their nefarious activities. This article applied the analytical method of research to dig into the criticisms of death penalty, and the possible effects of allowing unrepentant criminals the open access to their acts against society. In addition, it assessed the value of the lives of capital punishment victims in comparison to those of the culprits who are subtly protected through the clamour for right to life as the ultimate human right. The study found that under cover of avoiding mistakes and discouraging arbitrary executions, society is on the verge of sacrificing victims of capital offences for lives of culprits in a bid to apply a lopsided human right to life. The study therefore recommended, inter alia, that the death penalty debate be reviewed in this age with some more dispassionate considerations to strike a balance between the harm done to the victims and the error intended to be averted.