Should capital punishment be reintroduced in the UK to lower crime rates?

The use of capital punishment pertains to the use of execution and violence by the state on someone who has committed a very serious crime. In this article, I will be taking the stance that although capital punishment can be used as a method of retribution and helping to deter future crimes from being committed, the ideas revolving around the sanctity of life and the ability to focus our attention on reformation outweigh the reasons why some may see the reintroduction of capital punishment as a viable option.

One reason why capital punishment shouldn’t be reintroduced in the UK is due to the immoral nature of willingly taking one’s life, as well as violating the principles of the sanctity of life, which pertain to the protection of human life as a result of the inherent value that human life holds. The idea of taking a life, even in response to crime, undermines this moral belief as it suggests that the state has the right to take a life in the name of retribution. This can be considered as a flaw of capital punishment because not only does capital punishment cite a sense of dehumanisation for the offender, but it also perpetuates a cycle of violence due to the violence that capital punishment ensues, all of which culminate the state contradicting one of its aims of inhibiting violence. Furthermore, the justice system cannot be rendered infallible, it is not always a clear cut decision that can be made to convict someone with capital punishment, this gives rise to the potential of a plethora of wrongful convictions, something which is irreversible once the innocent individual has become the subject of capital punishment.

Conversely, some may argue that capital punishment could be reintroduced in the UK due to the morally justifiable form of retribution that capital punishment can bring. This is due to the fact that it arguably provides true justice for the victims of the heinous crimes that were committed by the offender, as the punishment would be proportional to the offence committed. Some may hold the strong view that offenders who commit the highest levels of crime, such as murder, deserve the worst punishment possible, under the banner of “an eye for an eye”. They also argue that capital punishment provides closure for families who have suffered the knock-on effects of the offence that had been committed; it provides them with the piece of mind that the individual who has been legally proven to have committed the offence against their loved one, has been dealt with in a proportional manner. The use of capital punishment can also be argued as a means of upholding and vocalising the nationwide condemnation of the crimes being committed. The presence of capital punishment can also be argued as a deterrence method in order to stop crimes from occurring in the first place. This is due to the fear that is ignited within a potential criminal as result of the thought of potentially losing their own life, should they commit their intended crime. As such, it could be argued that capital punishment can operate as a deterrence mechanism for crime in order to reduce crime rates in a nation which is currently undergoing high levels of crime year on year.

Despite this, some may question whether the efficacy of deterrence that may come with capital punishment overrides that of reformation, in helping to reduce crime rates. Reformation refers to the aim of changing the way offenders think and act in order to prevent them from committing the offence again, whilst simultaneously functioning as a method of helping offenders reintegrate back into society. Countries which have adopted this as their primary approach to tackling crime rates have observed astoundingly great results. Take Norway for example, a country who has invested heavily in aiming to make prisons a place that is more open and humane and where reformation is its prime objective, boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the world, with only 33 homicides in 2021 compared to the staggering 131 in London alone in the same year. Through investment in effective reformation methods, such as counselling and enhanced education which provided the platform for employability, the UK can avoid the irreversible measures of capital punishment which fail to address the root causes of crime and in turn, reduce crime rates.

Ultimately, after careful consideration of both arguments for and against the reintroduction of capital punishment in the UK, I have come to hold the stance that this idea should not be carried forward due to the adverse effects that it can have on the criminal. One's life should not be taken away from them due to a split- second mistake that they had made. In life, people deserve a second chance, and capital punishment simply does not provide that option. Furthermore, I think it’s important to examine the efficacy of capital punishment in countries which already have the measure in place, and are similar in terms of culture and principles to the UK. Take the US for example, a country, which has different rules and regulations in different states regarding capital punishment. It has been proven that murder rates are 44% lower in states that don’t have capital punishment, as opposed to those that do. So if a country like our own has not seen a change for the better with the use of capital punishment, then why should we adopt the same idea, surely we would then be risking the avoidable loss of lives of individuals, for no apparent reason, and it is for this reason coupled with the aforementioned points which bring me to the conclusion that capital punishment should not be reintroduced in the UK.