Amnesty for Death Row Inmates?

We believe human rights abuses anywhere are the concern of people everywhere.

So, outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world, we work to improve people’s lives through campaigning and international solidarity.

- Amnesty International

Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights to be respected and protected for everyone. We had the privilege of getting a visit from Miss Davina and Miss Nora, who came to talk about the abolishment of the death penalty. There have been many arguments revolving around this topic and I must admit that I was not really in favour of the abolishment. However, I still listened to the presentation with an open-mind.

In my opinion, I think that the death penalty is here for many reasons. To act as a punishment, and as a deterrent as well. But the most important of all, I think, is that it is a safe and infallible way of ensuring that person does not commit the same crime again, eg: murdering and killing. If you put a man in prison, when he gets released, who is to say that he will commit the crime again? Who is to say he is not gonna rob and steal again? Who is to say that he is gonna rape and murder again?

-

The main reason Amnesty International argued for the abolishment of the death penalty is due to the 3rd article in the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. Yes, I do agree with that statement. Everyone should have the right to life, but when that person has taken another life, is that right still rightfully his? Thus I still feel that in certain cases, it calls for an exception. Such as when by taking a life, we are saving a thousand others. Isn't the lives of thousands of innocent people more significant than the life of a puny convict?

-

Death penalty is irreversible and claims innocent victims. They can never be brought back to life.

When I first heard this, I had a sudden waver in my judgement. I thought that it was so true. That once people were dead, it was irreversible. That an innocent life would be lost just like that. But then, as I delve deeper, I realised that this was not a fault of the death penalty itself, but rather something simple that would almost be impossible to eradicate, human error. If a person was to be wrongly convicted, and he had received 20 canes as his punishment, but then it was found out that he was actually innocent, would the torture and humiliation he went through be reversed? NO. The ramifications might be very much more severe, but still, emphasising the word "irreversible", it applies to this and many other situations as well. If humans could be a hundred percent efficient, this problem wouldn't even have to exist at all. But then alot of other crisis would not have existed either.

-

Death penalty is discriminatory and is often used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities.

This, I feel, should not be an impediment to the execution of the death penalty. Because again, it is the fault of humans. Not the punishment itself. The person who determines who is executed is the one who is guilty. These people have abused their power and the law, which is a serious offence in itself. Let's just say a judge disliked black people, and he had simply sentenced an innocent black person to 50 strokes of caning, should we abolish caning then? Because it is used disproportionately?

-

Death penalty is a cruel punishment.

How cruel is death actually? The road leading to death might be cruel, inhumane, ruthless, painful, but death itself, what does it mean? Everybody dies eventually. So it's actually just dying a bit earlier. In fact, the death penalty allows the criminal to escape from the world of suffering. Compared to life imprisonment, where the criminal would be held captive behind bars, waking up everyday only to be aware that his freedom is lost, cut off from the outside world, a quick, painless death, and it will all be over. So, the death penalty. Cruel? Or not?

-

Numerous studies have shown that death penalty has no deterrent effect.

Well, I don't know how criminal minds operate, so my thinking might be different from theirs. But if I were a drug smuggler, and I found out that the punishment for drug trafficking was death, I would definitely think twice before trafficking drugs again. I feel that the reason why studies have not shown the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent, is due to other uncontrollable factors. Such as in science, where an experiment is only considered fair and valid if all the controlled variables are controlled. Thus, factors such as the strictness of the authority of the particular country, might have influenced the deterrent effect of the death penalty. So I remain neutral about this point.

-

However, I strongly disagree about the point made to go against the abolishment of the death penalty, which is that the death penalty is CHEAPER. Although it is a very serious issue which is being considered by governments, as Mr James pointed out, I can't help but find it ridiculous. How can we put a price tag on a person's life? In that case,  we should just hang all the inmates, so there will be no more need for prisons and thus save billions of money! The reason for authorities to order an underserving punishment is because it saves money. That I seriously can't comprehend. It's money against humanity, money against justice, money against all things worthy. But as they say, "Money makes the world go round", so there must be some mighty reason why people put money ahead of everything else.

-

Forgive me for being sceptical, but I do not feel that Amnesty had made any points which could possibly even change my mind, except for that thing about the mandatory death sentence and that people deserve a second chance. Therefore, I think that the death penalty should not be abolished, but rather amended and revised, so as the mandatory death sentence would no longer stand, as it would be major injustice to those who are in actual fact innocent. I also is in agreement that people deserve a second chance, so there could be perhaps a rehabilitation period, in which the convict would be given a chance to redeem themselves. However, if the efforts appear fruitless, as the convict shows no sign of remorse or regret, then the execution should be carried out. That way, there will not be a chance of them escaping and creating more havoc, and claiming more victims. I also feel that not all criminal acts are deserving of the death penalty, only ones that involves the life of another, or huge amounts of victims. So laws should amended in that sense, to make sure that the death penalty does not execute its job "too well". 

Wen Wen (: