Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE)

Law Unit 2

Title: To investigate whether or not the death penalty should be abolished or retained

Candidate Name:

Naje Campbell

Tajay Burgher

Josiah James

Institution: Wolmers Boys

Territory: Jamaica

Grade: 12

Year: 2023-2024

Candidate Number:

Center Number:

Teacher: Ms. Morris

 1

Title Page#
Acknowledgement 2
Description of Research Problem/Issue Statement 3
Aims/Objectives 4
Description of Methodology Employed 5
Presentation of Findings 6
Discussion of Findings 10
Conclusion/Recommendation 12
References 14
 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, and perhaps the most significant, the researchers are
eager to express gratitude to God Almighty for His guidance and directing
spirit throughout this internal assignment.

The researchers would like to express their sincere appreciation to Ms.

Morris and the other pupils for their assistance and guidance with this
research project.
 3

DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT
The question of “whether the death penalty should be abolished or
retained” stands as a critical and contentious issue. This research
aims to delve into the multifaceted dimensions of this capital
punishment system, evaluating its ethical, legal, and societal
implications. The central concern revolves around the effectiveness,
fairness, and moral justifiability of the death penalty in the
contemporary legal landscape.

The research problem involves a thorough investigation into the

impact of the death penalty on the criminal justice system, societal
attitudes, and the protection of human rights. Key elements to be
addressed include the potential for discriminatory application of the
death penalty, the deterrence effect on crime rates, the risk of judicial
error leading to the wrongful execution of individuals, and the
alignment of the death penalty with evolving international human
rights standards.
 4

AIMS/OBJECTIVES

● To investigate the elements of The Death Penalty.

● To examine whether citizens believe the death penalty should be

eliminated or kept in place.

● To ascertain whether the public is aware of the effects of keeping or

eliminating the death penalty.

● To bring awareness to how dangerous the death penalty may be.

 5

DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
EMPLOYED
In order to gather precise and intelligible data, the researcher used a
quantitative data collection method.

The purpose of this research paper is to examine the issues surrounding the
preservation and abolition of the death penalty. The methodology of the
quantitative kind will be applied. This kind of research formulates facts
and identifies patterns in the data by using quantifiable data. By
highlighting population trends, this will assist the researcher in narrowing
down the scope of the investigation. Numerous survey types are part of the
highly structured quantitative research methodology. The researcher plans
to use a questionnaire-based survey as its main source of data. The survey
will be distributed at random via email on social media. On January 17,
2024, a total of 20 questionnaires were distributed and collected that same
day.

The investigator will use online cases, books, and articles as secondary
sources. Secondary research yields a wealth of readily available,
comprehensive data. Additionally, it serves as a foundation for primary
research because the primary investigator can concentrate on obtaining
data that secondary sources might not have offered.
 6

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the results of our internal

assessment of Cape law and address the important question of whether or
not the death penalty should be abolished. Our research incorporates
information from numerous credible sources, such as "The Perspective,"
"The New York Times," and "Positive Negative Impact."

"Is the Death Penalty Justified or Should It Be Abolished?" is the

viewpoint.
An extensive summary of the arguments for and against the death penalty
can be found in this source. It examines this contentious practice's moral,
ethical, and practical aspects. Presenting important viewpoints from
advocates and experts helps to create a more complex understanding of the
problem.

"Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?" New York Times.

This source offers case studies, viewpoints from a range of stakeholders,
and real-world examples to provide a journalistic perspective on the issue.
The perspectives presented in this esteemed journal augment our
comprehension of the execution penalty's pragmatic consequences and
societal ramifications.

Effects, both positive and negative: "17 Pros and Cons of the Death
Penalty"
This source offers a fair analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of
the death penalty. It facilitates our evaluation of the larger ramifications of
keeping or abolishing the death penalty by combining a variety of
arguments.

1. Moral and Ethical Considerations:

Proponents of abolition contend that the death penalty is incompatible with
human dignity and violates a person's fundamental right to life.
Retentionists contend that the death penalty deters potential offenders and
is a fair punishment for serious crimes.
 7

2. Practical Implications:

Proponents of abolition claim that the death penalty is prone to mistakes,

resulting in cases of innocent lives lost irrevocably and wrongful
convictions.
Retentionists contend that appropriate safeguards and developments in the
legal system can reduce the possibility of erroneous executions,
guaranteeing the application of the death penalty in a fair and just manner.

3. Impact on Society: Opponents of the death penalty point out that it has
little effect on deterring crime and that abolishing it would be in line with
changing international standards.
Retentionists contend that the death penalty gives victims' families a sense
of justice and can serve as a deterrence, especially in situations involving
extreme violence.

Figure:1
 8

Figure.2

Figure.3
 9

The argument for and against the death penalty is intricate and varied. Our
analysis clarifies the ethical, practical, and societal aspects of this problem
by incorporating a range of viewpoints from reliable sources. The choice
of whether to abolish or keep the death penalty necessitates a careful
analysis of moral precepts, legal protections, and societal ramifications as
we balance the arguments put forth by abolitionists and retentionists. The
results of our study highlight the necessity of ongoing discussion and
critical analysis as societies attempt to resolve this persistent and
contentious issue.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
 10

The findings presented in our exploration of whether the death

penalty should be abolished or retained reveal the intricate web of
moral, practical, and societal considerations that define this
contentious issue. The discourse surrounding capital punishment
remains polarized, with fervent arguments on both sides.

The moral and ethical dimensions of the death penalty are pivotal in
shaping public opinion and policy decisions. "The Perspective" delves
into the heart of this matter, presenting arguments from both sides.
Abolitionists emphasize the inherent violation of the right to life and
the contravention of principles of human dignity. On the other hand,
retentionists argue that the death penalty is a just response to the most
heinous crimes, asserting that it is morally justified as a form of
retribution. The tension between these perspectives underscores the
profound moral complexities embedded in the discourse.

The practical implications of the death penalty, particularly the risk of

wrongful convictions, emerge as a critical concern. "The New York
Times" contributes real-life examples and case studies, highlighting
instances where flaws in the legal system have led to the irreversible
loss of innocent lives. Abolitionists contend that the potential for
errors is inherent in the system, challenging the ethical foundations of
capital punishment. In response, retentionists emphasize the potential
for advancements in legal procedures and safeguards, aiming to
mitigate the risk of wrongful executions. This raises a crucial question
about the feasibility of implementing foolproof mechanisms in a legal
system that is inherently fallible.

The societal impact of the death penalty is explored through the lens
of its effectiveness as a deterrent and its alignment with evolving
global norms. "Positive Negative Impact" lays out a comprehensive
 11

list of pros and cons, offering a balanced perspective. Abolitionists

argue that the death penalty does not significantly contribute to crime
deterrence and that global trends lean toward its abolition.
Meanwhile, retentionists assert that the death penalty acts as a
deterrent, particularly in cases of extreme violence, and provides
closure to victims' families. This dichotomy raises questions about the
interplay between societal attitudes, legal effectiveness, and
international consensus.

The findings presented compel us to reflect on the delicate balancing

act required in navigating the complexities of the death penalty
debate. Ethical principles clash with the quest for justice, practical
risks challenge the pursuit of fairness, and societal considerations
complicate the determination of an effective deterrent. As our
understanding evolves, it becomes apparent that the decision to retain
or abolish the death penalty demands careful consideration,
acknowledging the need for a nuanced approach that respects both
human rights and the imperative for justice. The ongoing dialogue and
critical examination of these findings will undoubtedly shape the
trajectory of societies grappling with this enduring and divisive
question.
 12

Conclusion
The findings presented in our exploration of whether the death
penalty should be abolished or retained reveal the intricate web of
moral, practical, and societal considerations that define this
contentious issue. The discourse surrounding capital punishment
remains polarized, with fervent arguments on both sides. The moral
and ethical dimensions of the death penalty are pivotal in shaping
public opinion and policy decisions. "The Perspective" delves into the
heart of this matter, presenting arguments from both sides.
Abolitionists emphasize the inherent violation of the right to life and
the contravention of principles of human dignity. On the other hand,
retentionists argue that the death penalty is a just response to the most
heinous crimes, asserting that it is morally justified as a form of
retribution. The tension between these perspectives underscores the
profound moral complexities embedded in the discourse. The
practical implications of the death penalty, particularly the risk of
wrongful convictions, emerge as a critical concern. "The New York
Times" contributes real-life examples and case studies, highlighting
instances where flaws in the legal system have led to the irreversible
loss of innocent lives. Abolitionists contend that the potential for
errors is inherent in the system, challenging the ethical foundations of
capital punishment. In response, retentionists emphasize the potential
for advancements in legal procedures and safeguards, aiming to
mitigate the risk of wrongful executions. This raises a crucial question
about the feasibility of implementing foolproof mechanisms in a legal
system that is inherently fallible. The societal impact of the death
penalty is explored through the lens of its effectiveness as a deterrent
and its alignment with evolving global norms. "Positive Negative
Impact" lays out a comprehensive list of pros and cons, offering a
balanced perspective. Abolitionists argue that the death penalty does
not significantly contribute to crime deterrence and that global trends
lean toward its abolition. Meanwhile, retentionists assert that the
 13

death penalty acts as a deterrent, particularly in cases of extreme

violence, and provides closure to victims' families. This dichotomy
raises questions about the interplay between societal attitudes, legal
effectiveness, and international consensus. The findings presented
compel us to reflect on the delicate balancing act required in
navigating the complexities of the death penalty debate. Ethical
principles clash with the quest for justice, practical risks challenge the
pursuit of fairness, and societal considerations complicate the
determination of an effective deterrent. As our understanding evolves,
it becomes apparent that the decision to retain or abolish the death
penalty demands careful consideration, acknowledging the need for a
nuanced approach that respects both human rights and the imperative
for justice. The ongoing dialogue and critical examination of these
findings will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of societies grappling
with this enduring and divisive question.
 14

REFERENCES

Behrens, Alan. “17 Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty - Postitive Negative Impact.”

Positive Negative Impact, 4 Dec. 2019, positivenegativeimpact.com/17-pros-and-

cons-of-the-death-penalty.

Benyamin, Chaya. “Is the Death Penalty Justified or Should It Be Abolished?”

Theperspective.com/, 24 Oct. 2022, www.theperspective.com/debates/politics/death-

penalty-justified-abolished.

Daniels, Nicole. “Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?” The New York Times, 20

Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/learning/should-the-death-penalty-be-

abolished.html.