This blog post examines from multiple angles whether the death penalty is an effective system for crime deterrence and justice, or an inhumane punishment that violates human rights.
I believe the death penalty should be abolished. Today’s death penalty carries numerous problems. While public opinion, fueled by recent consecutive violent crimes, largely favors the death penalty for heinous criminals, I take the opposing stance. Is the death penalty truly a just punishment? I believe it is not. So, what problems does today’s death penalty entail?
First, the death penalty is inhumane. Currently, most developed nations, except the United States, unconditionally oppose capital punishment. This is because the death penalty is the ultimate form of punishment that is ruthless, cruel, inhuman, and degrading. As Amnesty International reminded us in the 1977 Stockholm Declaration, “The execution of the death penalty is an act of violence, and violence tends to breed violence; the imposition of the death penalty brutalizes all those involved in the process.” According to this declaration, every execution is perceived as a cruel act by those involved in its implementation and undermines the value society places on human life. For example, on December 30, 2006, former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was hanged following a trial that failed to meet international standards for a fair trial. Iraqi authorities released footage capturing the final moments before execution, and additional illegally recorded videos circulated. These videos depicted prison guards mocking Saddam Hussein and detailed scenes of the execution process, drawing worldwide condemnation.
The cruelty of the death penalty affects not only the condemned but also their families, prison guards, and executioners. Cases from various countries indicate that the role of executioner leaves significant psychological trauma. Judges, prosecutors, and other relevant officials also face moral dilemmas during executions that conflict with their personal beliefs.
Furthermore, the methods of execution themselves are inhumane. U.S. judicial authorities have implemented various methods—hanging, firing squad, gas chamber, electric chair, and lethal injection—attempting to change execution practices to more humane methods. However, painful executions still occur, as seen in the case of Angel Diaz, who was executed by lethal injection. He continued to move after the first injection and only died 34 minutes later after the second injection. The autopsy revealed the poison was injected into soft tissue rather than a vein. Due to such problems, some states have suspended executions and are reviewing the issues. Not only lethal injection, but various methods of execution can violate the human rights of the condemned due to errors or their inherent inhumanity.
Second, the death penalty system can inflict harm on the innocent through wrongful convictions. According to Amnesty International, suspicions persist that innocent people have been executed over the past decade. In the United States, 349 cases of wrongful convictions have been reported, including 23 innocent individuals who were executed. These miscarriages of justice are often uncovered during appeals or through coincidental news reports. Roy Jenkins, former British Home Secretary, concluded, “In many of the 10 death penalty cases, it was difficult to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Given the inherent fallibility of human judgment, we must exercise even greater caution with final measures like the death penalty.” Innocent people should not be sacrificed to the death penalty system.
Third, the death penalty can be abused by dictators or authoritarian regimes. Throughout modern Korean history and global history, dictators have exploited the death penalty as a tool for political oppression. Numerous examples exist of dictators who seized power through military coups or similar means abusing the death penalty to execute opponents. In recent years, 14 countries have carried out executions for such political purposes, using the guise of fair trials to eliminate political rivals. Under such regimes, the death penalty is nothing more than murder cloaked in legal legitimacy.
Proponents of capital punishment argue that execution makes the condemned pay for their crimes and enhances crime deterrence. However, whether the death penalty truly fulfills this role is questionable. In 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, stating that there is no conclusive evidence of its deterrent effect and that abolition better protects human rights. In the case of Delaware, USA, homicide rates increased after the death penalty was reinstated. Conversely, in Canada, which abolished capital punishment in 1976, the homicide rate decreased by 44%. Evidence supporting the deterrent effect of the death penalty is lacking; strengthening social safety nets is more effective in preventing crime.
Finally, some argue in favor of the death penalty because keeping death row inmates alive on life sentences requires the state to bear their living expenses. Indeed, the cost of maintaining death row inmates in South Korea reached approximately 25.5 billion won by 2012, amounting to about 25 million won per inmate. However, the logic of executing death sentences for cost savings is an unjust approach that reduces human rights to a cost issue. The decision to maintain the death penalty should be based on the dignity of human life, not economic motives.
As demonstrated by these various arguments, the death penalty is an unjust law that should be abolished worldwide. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, 139 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Most countries that previously carried out executions have abolished the death penalty, and cases of reintroduction are extremely rare. However, some nations still maintain the death penalty. Even if punishment for criminals is necessary, the death penalty is merely another form of state-sanctioned violence. What is crucial is expanding the social safety net to prevent crime. Strengthening social protection mechanisms is preferable to maintaining the death penalty for the protection of citizens.
In conclusion, the death penalty should be abolished. However, abolishing it immediately in all countries is realistically difficult. Therefore, countries that maintain the death penalty should strive to abolish it gradually while simultaneously improving their current systems to make them more rational and humane.
