This topic has been debated for a while, one side claiming it is inhumane, another saying it’s necessary, and a third saying it depends on the crime and the circumstances.
Some pros of the death penalty is that It gives many families closure that the person who committed these crimes won’t have a chance to get out of prison. The idea of “an eye for an eye” applies here too. It gives the family an idea of some sort of retribution for their lost loved one or who ever was affected by this person.
This also prevents some people from commiting more crime, as seen by amnesty international where the rate of death sentences has gone down. With this as a possible punishment, instead of just a few years in jail/prison or possibility of parole, it may allow people to rethink their actions. It also helps prevent overcrowding in the system, leaving more room for more inmates instead of giving them a chance to get out of holding due to overcrowding, resulting in, usually, more crime being committed.
By continuing the death penalty, it keeps the general public safer than it would be if any of these people escaped or would spend the rest of their lives in jail. The danger of someone with tendencies to commit again being released is too great and should be taken into account no matter what.
In the case of Albert Flick, he was deemed too old to kill again after being jailed for assaulting two women in 2010 and previously being jailed for killing his wife in 1979. Once released in 2014, he allegedly followed 48 year old Kimberly Dobbie around town, later killing her in 2018 in front of her sons, who were both 11 at the time. If Flick had been kept in jail, or even had the death penalty placed on him, Kimberly would probably still be alive today.
A con is that it’s irreversible. If a mistake was made, and this person was later found to be innocent, you could never get them back. On top of that, it can be seen as cruel and unusual punishment. There are fewer rich people on death row because they could afford a good lawyer to help them get out of it, while others are stuck with public defendants who aren’t quite sure how to defend their client.
Also, a country that respects life should not be taking it away. Many police chiefs, when asked, said that the best way to deter crime is curbing drugs and longer sentencing, and they say the death penalty does little to nothing to deter violent crimes.
The cost to prosecute the death penalty is much higher than other cases. Most of the time, people just don’t care and work outside of the morality and basic safety of society, continuing to risk the lives of others. The current justice system isn’t fair because there are wrongful convictions and legal disadvantages when it comes down to convictions, leaving those without money having to fend for themselves.
The death penalty should be abolished. There should be special holding facilities for people who commit violent crimes and the conditions of each person’s holding time should be determined by the crime. The idea of “an eye for an eye” would leave the whole world blind.
Everyone should be given the same or similar rights to a lawyer, but depending on the offense, there should be a limit or a certain amount of fairness when it comes to defendants.
The chance of a break out is very slim, a 3% chance to escape, and most of the time, these occur in minimum security prisons, meaning that the chance of someone breaking out of a maximum security prison even slimmer, giving more security to the idea they won’t have a chance to escape.
There are reasons for both sides of the penalty, seeing how this is widely discussed topic. You have to look at both sides of the story to decide.