No to the death penalty, if to life
Do we have the right to take a person’s life? The death penalty is the solution to crimes problems committed in a society? These questions can be addressed from two perspectives;The first, those who are against this sanction, indicate that this penalty goes against the right to life, since there is no crime that may deserve such punishment;And the second, who are in favor of this conviction, such as the Italian criminologist and doctor Cesare Lombroso, who said that the only way to end the problem of crimes committed in a society is the elimination of the subject who commits them.
The death penalty despite being abolished in much of America, remains a center of controversy, since continents such as Europe, Africa, Asia and some American countries, in which the United States, Belize, Guatemala and Cuba stand out, as well as theAnglophone countries of the Caribbean, including Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana still contemplate her in her criminal regulations as a punishment for the criminal (Cáceres Ramírez, 2015). This sanction has been applied in very ancient peoples and empires such as ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, kingdoms of Asia Minor, former Israel, and cities Sumerian state for those crimes such as homicide, adultery, betrayal of the country, incest, among others. This sanction consists in taking the life of a convicted person from the State, as a punishment for committing a crime established in the legislation. According to article number 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every individual has the right to the life, freedom and security of his person, so that the death penalty would be the denial of human rights, since he violates theright to life. For this reason we ask ourselves, is the death penalty a fair punishment? What kill criminals is what a certain society really needs? Would that help solve criminal problems? For those who are in favor of this sanction they argue that this must be of equal proportion to the damage produced. However, it should be noted that the function of a criminal system, from any country, should always ensure that criminals have the opportunity to reintegrate society. A system of sanctions should not necessarily be governed by the principle of reciprocity, what is sought is that there are less crimes;that is, less criminals.
This conviction, although it is true, is intended to achieve justice for victims, is not the best option as a social measure of crime prevention, because according to a study presented in 2017 with official Japanese police information, it concluded that the penalty ofDeath does not prevent serious crimes from being carried out, and that is because society not only needs its criminals to be punished in an exemplary and fair way, but also needs that no more crimes be committed.
Other punishment measures should be sought, without neglecting the dignity of each person, with this we refer to the respect of his life and the right he possesses in order to have an opportunity to return to society, once his penalty is fulfilled.
Leave feedback