The penalty is also not in order because there is no humane way to kill.
In 2006 for instance, a lethal injection that was used to execute Angel Nieves Diaz and was deemed ‘humane’ took a whopping 34 minutes and was administered in two doses.
This is because it lacks the deterrent effect to which its advocates commonly refer.
“As recently stated by the General Assembly of the United Nations, “there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty”” (International Commission against Death Penalty, 2013).
Instead, it tramples upon the human right of undergoing a dignified death and dying peacefully and out of public’s attention.
There can never be a humane way to kill and no matter the crime one has committed, they should not be subjected to this painful process of dying. Conclusion The death penalty does not address crime effectively as it is purported to. Promo code: SAVE20is a leading academic writing service that is dedicated to providing extra support and help to students all over the world.
This paper argues that the death penalty should be abolished because it is not one of the best methods of punishing criminals and addressing crime.
Capital punishment is not an effective way of deterring crime contrary to arguments of those who support it.
However, it would later be revealed through evidence that he was not the one who set that fire. Willingham, an innocent citizen, had paid with his life a crime he never knew anything about nor committed.
As is clear here, being declared innocent was of no use for him since it could not bring him back to life.