Death Penalty Ethics Essay, Research Paper

INTRODUCTION

The idea of putting another human to death is hard to completely fathom. The physical mechanics involved in the act of execution are easy to grasp, but the emotions involved in carrying out the death sentence on another person, regardless of how much they deserve it, is beyond my own understanding. I know it must be painful, dehumanizing, and sickening. However, this act is sometimes necessary and it is our responsibility as a society to see that it is done. Capital punishment debates can quickly turn heated and argumentative because of the very dramatic nature of the topic. Most people either completely support capital punishment or are completely against it. Unfortunately there is no middle road that you can take, you can t half kill a person for a crime. I will argue that capital punishment for first degree murder is a necessary part of living in a civilized society. Capital Punishment dates back to the bible and seems to be a normal part of life in many cultures through the years. I will start my argument by defending some of the arguments made by opponents of capital punishment and then present some arguments in favor capital punishment.

ARGUMENTS

Opponents of the death penalty have basically four arguments. The first is the possibility of error. However, the chance that there might be an error is separate from the issue of whether the death penalty can be justified or not. If an error does occur, and an innocent person is executed, then the problem lies in the court system and not the death penalty. Furthermore, most activities in our world, in which humans are involved, possess a possibility of injury or death. Construction, sports, driving, and air travel all offer the possibility of accidental death even though the highest levels of precautions are taken. These activities continue to take place, and continue to occasionally take human lives, because we as a society have decided that the advantages outweigh the unintended losses. We have also decided that the advantages of having dangerous murderers removed from our society outweigh the losses of the offender.

The second argument against capital punishment is that it is unfair in its administration. Statistics show that the poor and minorities are more likely to receive the death penalty. The wealthy have more resources available to them and thus can afford better lawyers that are more skilled. Once again, this is a separate issue. It can t be disputed sadly, the rich are more likely to get off with a lesser sentence, and the bias is wrong. However, this is yet another problem with in the court system and should not be considered a problem with the death penalty. The same problem exists for less serious crimes not just murder and death penalty cases.

The third argument is actually a rebuttal to a claim made be some supporters of the death penalty. The claim is that the threat of capital punishment reduces violent crimes. Opponents of the death penalty do not agree and have a valid argument when they say the claims that capital punishment reduces violent crime is inconclusive and certainly not proven. In fact, statistics show that the death penalty neither lowers nor raises the incidence of violent crimes. I am not a supporter of the death penalty because it might scare potential criminals into thinking twice before they murder or rape someone. I support the death penalty because it removes individuals who threaten the lives of the law-obeying citizens.

The fourth argument is that the length of stay on death row, with its endless appeals, delays, technicalities, and retrials keep a person waiting for death for years on end. These many appeals can cost taxpayers thousands of dollars and many times costs more than just locking the prisoner up throwing away the key. An opponent will also argue that the delays are cruel punishment for the person being executed because they don t know when the end will finally come. I believe that the offender gave up every right that he/she has when they took the life of another person. Is this fate not the same fate that someone sentenced to life in prison would face? Even the everyday person has no way of knowing when they are going to die. I feel that this is the weakest of the four arguments presented by opponents of capital punishment.

In my own mindset of thinking, the strongest argument for capital punishment is an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. This type of thinking is often called Retributivism. Retributivism is mans natural desire to fight back against someone doing harm to someone or something. Our society is based on rights, freedoms and the pursuit of happiness. We also have a judicial system in place for when someone infringes on those rights or freedoms. No one will argue that it is wrong to send someone to jail for stealing a car, but is it right to give someone the same punishment for raping and killing an innocent person. If I kill someone I take away whatever chance that person had of pursing happiness ever again and took away the victims rights to live a long and happy life. I therefore give up my rights and freedoms that society has given to me. A retributivist will base their arguments mainly on the fact that justice is being served when they get back what they have done to someone else. Reinan will argue that if we were going to practice an eye for an eye we would have to inflict the same pain onto the offender that the offender inflicted to the victum. But in our society we have standards and rules for executing people which say they must be quick and effective. By following this practice we are not truly following the mindset of an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. What kind of punishment would be fitting for someone that robbed a bank, stole a car, or committed prostitution? If we are going to use this eye for and eye argument we should use it all the time, not just when it is serious enough for someone to be put to death.

Someone in favor of the death penalty would also argue that someone who has committed a violent homicide can not be truly rehabilitated. One of the main goals of the jail system in the United States is to rehabilitate its prisoners to make them productive members of society when they are released. If there is no chance to rehabilitate these people and release them back into society then they are just a burden and should be eliminated so that there is no chance that they will ever escape back into society. The opposition would argue that prison system is not working very well at rehabilitating any criminals very well because of the high number of repeat offenders. Does this mean that we should execute someone that steals cars repeatedly after going through the judicial system? If we follow the mindset that any one that can not be rehabilitated should be executed then it is possible to execute a repeat offender shoplifter.

ANALYSIS

The four arguments that I presented against capital punishment are very weak in the form that they are given. The first two arguments are addressing problems that are not directly related to the question of whether or not capital punishment is morally correct. In order to take these arguments seriously I would have to see reform in the judicial system or specific evidence that these problems only occur in capital punishment cases. The argument that the stay on death row is to long and puts the prisoner through to much emotional stress is not valid if you follow the idea the the prisoner gave up his rights when he took rights away from someone else.

The argument of rehabilitation also has a lot of problems and assumptions associated with it. The opposition is correct when they say that the prison system does not do a very good job at rehabilitation and this can be proven by the number of criminals that go through the system only to repeat the original offense or even commit a different crime. The important point that is made here is to eliminate a chance for someone capable of murder back into society.

The strongest argument is the retributivist mind set. Retributivist is often thought of as revenge, which is a natural moral impulse of human beings that helps to eliminate external aggression (Hinman, 1996, p166). Reiman argues that by not following the words eye for an eye literally, then we are not actually practicing lex talionis. I think that it should be taken as a metaphor and a bases for justice and let the end result be equal to the pain or grieve that the offender caused. This can be true for more that just capital punishment, the example of stealing a car will also work. If someone steals my car and I am inconvenienced, the punishment should reflect the same amount of inconvenience and loss money that I experienced That does not mean that I should get the opportunity to steal the offenders car, but rather and equal amount of damage is done to the offender to make that person change his/her ways.

CONCLUSION

As the 20th century comes to an end it is obvious that the justice system needs reform and the debate about capital punishment will continue. As we look at capital punishment it is important to see both sides of the issue and ask ourselves why is it right or wrong. From my point of view, I think an eye for an eye is the most reasonable way to look at capital punishment in our current society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hinman, Lawerence M. “Punishment and the Death Penalty.” Contemporary Moral Issues. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 1996.

Hinman, Lawerance M. “Punishment and the Death Penalty.” Ethics Update Home Page. April 26, 1999. (June 27, 1999).

“Costs of the Death Penalty” Death Penalty Information Center. May 1999. (June 27, 1999).