what is the use of capital punishment? does it serve to deter 'would-be' criminals from committing the crime? or is it just a 'tradition'? bringing forward the tried and tested ways of medieval punishments, showing the darker side of the human race. many old ways of killing criminals were foul, disgusting, and inhumane. these practices, are certainly what the amnesty international would be crying out against, if they were to exist now. however, they were common practices perhaps 500 years ago. so is this unfairness? and how can justice ever be 100% correct? it is human to err. if we do not err, we would not be man. we would have been elevated to the status of God.

first, i would seek to define the meaning of the words 'justice', and 'human rights'

as defined by the mariam-webster's dictionary,
'justice' means 'the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments' , the 'the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity' or: the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action : conformity to this principle or idea.

human rights, by the encyclopedia Britannica, says rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals as a consequence of being human. They refer to a wide continuum of values or capabilities thought to enhance human agency and declared to be universal in character, in some sense equally claimed for all human beings.

i will touch on points on each side of the argument, THEN supporting one specific side.

FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:

firstly, it would give families of the victim a sense of 'satisfaction', not satisfaction in the sense that it gave them pleasure to see someone executed, but satisfaction in knowing that the perpetrator of the crimes against them has been punished. this feeling of wanting revenge, to exact the appropriate 'payback', is probably the most primal urge. who doesn't want an equal treatment? a classic example. the small boy is being bullied by a much older kid. the kid is twice his size, and is trying to take away his school bag. would the boy just say 'here. take it. you can have it.' OBVIOUSLY he would not. who would? as is normally the case, the smaller boy tries to hang on to his school bag. ALTHOUGH it is highly impossible that he win the older boy, he would still try. this applies to the justice system, although the laws and constituencies of the country are more likely to succeed at condemning the criminal.

secondly, capital punishment would serve as a strong deterrence to criminals. using Singapore as an example, in 2005, drug abusers arrested registered a fall of 17% as compared to 2004. and between 1994 and 2006, the number of abusers arrested registered an 82% decline. this goes to show how the strict death penalty has worked for singapore. from opium users in colonial rule, to synthetic drugs now, singapore's penalty serves as a strong deterrent, discouraging drug abusers and traffickers. unlike USA, which has a flourishing illegal drug market, with drugs like cocaine, marijuana, heroin etc. if singapore were like the united states, then we would see teenagers addicted to drugs, get sent in and out of rehabilitation centers, ruin their lives and whatnot.

thus, to a certain extent the death penalty IS useful, and CAN serve as a warning to potential murderers, hijackers, and wutever other crimes people might want to commit.

AGAINST the death penalty

it is a violation of human rights. which, are rights that belong to every individual, freedom of unlawful imprisonment, torture or execution. it is plausible, to say that: who decides what is unlawful? how does the judge sentence the guilty? and what if the guilty is not guilty? how is 100 people killing a black man by hanging a 'lynch mob', but a county judge sentencing a wrongly accused person to hang be called 'justice'? it does not make any sense. in any case, law is supposed to be impartial. but, a judge is still a common man given the power to rule over cases by the government because of certain qualifications. and no matter what, will still be prejudiced against or towards someone, no matter how minutely. certainly, they too, will be affected by societal pressure, and thus the sentence cannot be 'impartial'
lets say a person was sentenced to death for the act of murder, and 20 years later it was discovered that he was actually innocent? and that during the investigation there was an error? or maybe the prosecution overlooked some details that might have lead to his release? can the court that sentenced him be responsible? is that situation manslaughter?

in the case of amara toshi, he arrived at singapore full of hope to play soccer, but first, was asked by his manager to deliver some capsules to a man in singapore. these capsules, his manager claimed contained herbal medicine. the capsules contained diamorphine. he was hanged, for possesion of drugs, even though he was not aware that he was carrying drugs. in the sentencing, the judge said ' Tochi should have known and therefore he is guilty'. can toshi be guilty? what if he was truly ignorant of the contents of the 'herbal medicine'? there was no evidence to show that he knew about the contents, or that discovered their contents. he was just an eager football player, hoping for a better future in singapore. however, it is the judge's statement that i find repulsive. 'he should have known'. if he had known, he would be guilty. perhaps he would refuse to bring it to singapore. but he had not known, and how can it be said that he 'should have known'?

to keep a man alive is costly, and if a situation was that 2million dollars of government money was given to keep criminals in life imprisonment alive, instead of spendings for healthcare, education etc. which would be more useful? people in society would be indignant about their taxes going to keeping these criminals alive. would you then, say that you would rather take away the life of this murderer, and not give him a chance to repent? and what if he was truly repentant of his actions? would he still be given a chance? we all make mistakes in life, and what matters is that how serious these mistakes are.

conclusion:
we cannot have our cake and eat it too. there is no perfect answer to this situation. human life is important, but are those of hardened criminals any less important? how is it judged when a person should be handed the death penalty? i feel that in most cases, the death penalty should not be applied. however, i do not believe in the total abolishment of the death penalty, as it serves a good purpose. as such, i believe that the death penalty should be used sparingly, at the discretion of the judge, in cases where it is evident that the accused is guilty, where the accused has been proven guilty in a lawful manner, and when absolutely necessary. also, i feel that criminals dealt with life imprisonment should be given the choice whether to die, or to stay in prison for the rest of their life. is a caged bird any different from a bird lying dead on the road? mayb yes, mayb no. certainly, it is alive. but does it have any happiness? is it free to fly in the sky as is the instinct of a bird, is that kind of existence any different from being dead?