The Death Penalty: A Just and Effective Deterrent or A Violation of Human Rights?

I don’t agree with the death penalty. And trust me, that’s not because I have sympathy for rapists, child murderers, or serial killers. Frankly, I’d want to see them rot in hell. But wanting someone to suffer and having the authority to end their life are two completely different things. As much as we’d love to say “an eye for an eye,” we don’t live in a society where that should be acceptable anymore. If we want to prove we’re better than those who commit such heinous acts, shouldn’t we act like it?

At its core, capital punishment isn’t just a legal issue, it’s a moral and human rights issue. We no longer live in a world where justice should mirror revenge. The death penalty is irreversible, absolute, and in the wrong hands, dangerously flawed. Once carried out, there is no undoing it. No second chances. And while some might argue that such finality is the point, it also means there is no room for error; a terrifying thought in a justice system that is, like all human institutions, imperfect.

Now, it’s also a financial issue for many. “Why are we feeding these monsters with our tax money?” they ask. It’s a fair question — one that reflects a deep frustration with a system that seems to protect the worst people. Why should a man who took lives get a bed, three meals a day, and healthcare? It feels unjust. But have you considered this: the death penalty actually costs more than life imprisonment. Sounds counterintuitive, right? According to extensive research, particularly from the Death Penalty Information Center, the death penalty is far more expensive than life imprisonment without parole. The additional costs come from longer and more complicated trials, appeals that are required to avoid wrongful execution, expert witnesses, and increased incarceration expenses due to the conditions on death row. In many cases, even after all that, the sentence is overturned. So what are we really paying for?

“They deserve it,” some argue. And emotionally, I get it. But justice isn’t about what people deserve in the heat of rage. It’s about upholding principles, about fairness, consistency, and respect for human life. We don’t fix killing with more killing. That’s not justice; that’s vengeance with a government stamp. And what if we’re wrong? There's this idea that’s been on my mind: if we agree that every human life holds the same value — that killing one person is as morally serious as killing a hundred — then how do we justify when death is or isn’t an acceptable punishment? If war criminals are executed for mass atrocities, shouldn't a person who murders one innocent life face the same consequence? But here's where our society contradicts itself: if we truly believe in the equal worth of every life, then we also have to face the flip side; that executing even one innocent person can’t be brushed off as an “exception.” If all lives matter equally, then all mistakes matter equally too. How can we accept a system where the price of justice might be someone’s life, someone who didn’t even commit the crime?

Another justification often raised is that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. If the consequences are extreme, people will think twice before committing a crime, right? Unfortunately, studies have shown otherwise. Research from various countries and institutions, including the National Academy of Sciences, has failed to prove that capital punishment has any meaningful deterrent effect. Crime rates are influenced by a wide variety of social, economic, and psychological factors. Punishment alone, especially one applied so rarely and inconsistently, doesn’t have the sweeping impact people assume it does.

Of course, there’s the argument that “a dead man can’t kill again.” True. But neither can someone serving life without parole in a secure facility. We can absolutely contain dangerous individuals without resorting to execution. The idea that killing them is the only way to prevent further harm is misleading and, frankly, lazy. We have the means to protect society without violating our own moral code.

Some say executions offer closure to victims’ families. And while that may be true for a few, for many others, the death penalty process only prolongs their suffering. The years of appeals, delays, and courtroom battles drag out their trauma. True healing, for many, comes not from watching someone die, but from being able to move forward without endless legal proceedings dominating their lives.

So what do we do with those people? Lock them up and forget about them? Maybe. But could they contribute something, even from behind bars? I’m not talking about reintegrating them into communities, of course not, and definitely not in some twisted gulag. But perhaps, under strict oversight and humane conditions, a structured labor system could allow inmates to repay society in some small way. Not as punishment, but as a form of productive responsibility.

At the end of the day, I despise what some people are capable of. I truly do. But it's not our right to take their lives. Justice should protect society, yes, but it should also reflect who we are, and who we want to be. We can choose to contain evil without becoming part of it. That, I believe, is real justice.

https://tinyurl.com/55e9fj63

Andrașiu Ana-Maria, clasa a X-a A