‘The death penalty cannot be imposed.’ This is what Article 114 of the Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands reads. More than half of Dutch people disagree with this. They believe that murderers have squandered their human rights. Own fault. But what if it turns out that the convicted person is not the perpetrator? That’s right, then we have a new victim and a murderer on the loose. In my opinion, the death penalty is not a good idea!
Arguments against the death penalty
Human rights
The strongest argument against the death penalty is that every person has human rights. This is described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some say that you can forfeit this, but human rights do not belong to someone as a reward for good behavior. These are rights that every person has!
Wrongly convicted
In addition, it has often happened that people who have been sentenced to death have subsequently turned out not to be guilty. Since the death penalty is an irrevocable punishment, this is also a compelling argument. And despite all the DNA methods and analyzes that are possible today, justice is still far from flawless. And remember, for every person wrongfully sentenced to death, there is a murderer walking free!
Nothing is learned
As a third argument against the death penalty, I believe that punishment is something to learn from. You will be punished so that you will not do what you did wrong again next time. When the death penalty is imposed, you don’t get another chance to show that you have changed. So nothing will ever be learned!
Arguments for the death penalty
Preventing recurrence
Now there are a lot of people in the Netherlands who believe that the death penalty should be justified and reintroduced. As an argument for this, they use, among other things, that the death penalty is the only way to prevent recurrence. If people are not severely punished, they will easily do wrong things again!
Compensation for surviving relatives
A second argument they have is that the highest punishment should be demanded to satisfy the surviving relatives. The victims and family therefore have the right to take revenge. As long as the murderer has not disappeared from society, they will not have a sense of security and satisfaction.
Refutation of the arguments in favor of the death penalty
Of course, proponents of the death penalty have two difficult and important points here. However, I don’t think what they say is entirely correct. The death penalty is of course the only way to prevent recurrence, I completely agree! But those who are killed to prevent recurrence are punished more for a crime that has not yet been committed and might not be committed, than for a crime that has already been committed! In addition, research has shown that murder is the least repeated crime. There is also something to be said about the second argument. In practice it often becomes clear that settling with the criminal does not put aside the feelings of grief, loss and revenge. So nothing will be solved by this!
In short, I believe that the death penalty is not a justified punishment. The most decisive argument for this for me is that every person has human rights. And you can’t lose that! And I know: there are good arguments for the death penalty, but in the end it turns out that this punishment often solves nothing!