The death penalty is used as a punishment in some societies, but the main purpose of punishments is not to punish the criminal or to take revenge, and it should not be. The main purpose of the fight against crime in a society is to reduce and eliminate the susceptibility to crime, the intention of people to commit crime and the reasons that push people to crime. The death penalty is a very sensitive and critical issue. While there are those who defend it, there are also those who oppose it seriously. The United Nations says that the death penalty is against one of the most basic human rights, the right to life. According to many groups who are against the death penalty, even the justification that the death penalty is against human rights is one of the situations that makes the death penalty indisputable. However, the effect of that penalty on crime rates in the regions where it is applied has an important place on the basis of whether a penalty is decided against the crime. However, a death sentence should not be viewed as results-oriented. Because, whatever the consequences or effects may be, the termination of the right to life, which is the most basic human right, is unacceptable in any way. The fact that the death penalty reduces crime rates should not be a sufficient argument to defend the death penalty. There should not be a discussion or data-based study on the most fundamental human right, the right to life. The death penalty cannot be regulated by majority vote, unanimity or law. Because the right to life, which is the most basic human right, cannot be destroyed by majority will.
Although it is said by many that the death penalty is against human rights, liberal and democratic rights, in the perspective of American exceptionism, in the United States of America, which is built on completely liberal, egalitarian, democratic foundations, is the most liberal in the world and is said to be in charge of distributing democracy to the rest of the world, many states use the death penalty.
The death penalty should not be in terms of human rights, nor should it be in terms of lack of control of decision makers and the system. Because the death penalty can be used as a political tool in the hands of those who decide this. If there is an autocratic, oppressive regime, or if democratic regimes shift to oppression and tyranny, the government of the time can use the death penalty to suppress opposing views. Especially with the loss of independence of the judiciary, the existence of the death penalty can have very serious negative consequences that cannot be avoided.
One of the most problematic points about this issue is who and what kind of authority will decide on the death penalty. There should be no doubt of legitimacy against the authorities who will make this decision. There must be a consensus in public opinion. The aim should not be to eliminate the perpetrator, but to eliminate the crime. It should be aimed to eliminate the reasons that push people to commit crimes. Social policies should be developed to eliminate consent to crime. Eliminating the criminal will not have an effect on the reasons that lead him/her to crime, or on people’s consent to commit a crime.
Zeki Talustan Gülten
